The Assembly met at 10.30 am (The Initial Presiding Officer (The Lord Alderdice of Knock) in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Presiding Officer’s Business

Lord Alderdice: By virtue of paragraph 1 of the schedule to the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998, it falls to the Secretary of State to determine where and when meetings of the Assembly shall be held. I have received from the Secretary of State a letter directing that the Assembly shall meet at Parliament Buildings, Stormont at 10.30 am on Monday 2November until 6.00 pm on Monday 30November.
During the last sitting, there was comment about remarks allegedly made by some Members, and I was asked to give a number of rulings. I have studied the Official Report and have listened to sections of the tape recording of proceedings. I have also taken advice on certain matters. Neither the Official Report nor the tapes of proceedings picked up any comments of the kind alleged to have been made by RevWilliamMcCrea. Remarks made by some Members sailed a little close to the wind, and I request Members to observe more closely the courtesies and respect due in the Chamber.
In the case of some other interventions, I have issued formal, written cautions to those concerned, and I must advise the House that repetition of such transgressions will inevitably lead to disciplinary action. Let me be more specific: however justified Members may feel about making criticisms of me as an individual — and I have no doubt that such criticism is, on occasion, justified — it is my responsibility to be the current guardian of the dignity of the Chair. I must therefore advise that criticisms in the Chamber of the Chair should be made only on a substantive motion, as is the rule elsewhere. They should not be made incidentally in debate.
My second ruling concerns the reading of newspapers in the Chamber. This is clearly discourteous to other Members, especially those speaking at the time. Newspapers should not be brought into or read in the Chamber, except for brief quotations in the context of a speech. Furthermore, should this or any similar device be used with the possible intention of embarrassing a Member, it will be ruled out of order.
Finally, I must remind Members that it is not acceptable to accuse other Members of telling lies. This is a clear rule. Members may be said to be misinformed, misguided or mistaken, but they may not be accused of lying — that is unparliamentary language.

Mr Alex Maskey: A Chathaoirligh, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, I should like to make a point of order relating to your last remarks on unparliamentary language and your judgement on that. It is remarkable that part of the substance of the complaints that I made at the last sitting of the Assembly has been lumped in with your complaints. Perhaps I should have put forward a motion on your handling of that business. However, I would appreciate your views on the transcript of a remark attributed to Paul Berry. This is recorded on page236 of Hansard of 26 October.

Mr Cedric Wilson: On a point of order, MrPresiding Officer.

Lord Alderdice: This is, I understand, a point of order.

Mr Cedric Wilson: On what basis are you dealing with this business?

Lord Alderdice: I am taking MrMaskey’s remarks as a point of order. They are clearly a query about my conduct of the proceedings. I cannot take a point of order on a point of order.

Mr Alex Maskey: A Chathaoirligh, I want to make the specific point that in Hansard Mr Berry is reported as having referred to a full terrorist organisation in the Tyrone area. It is my understanding, and that of other Members, that those were not the words used. I would like you to investigate the accuracy of Hansard and report back to the Assembly. I am not certain that the report is accurate.
I should also draw your attention to the substance of Mr Berry’s remarks as recorded in Hansard. They are quite disgraceful and bear out the criticism levelled at you at that time.

Lord Alderdice: I made it clear at the time — as I think Hansard shows — that I was not content with some of the remarks and their tone. In that context, I have followed the matter up. All Members are learning procedure and what is appropriate behaviour in the Chamber. For example, one of the reasons the Initial Presiding Officer stands is to indicate to other Members that they should sit down — and we have just had such a situation.
I have tried in these first sittings to be reasonably flexible and understanding for I am aware that, while some Members have experience of various elected bodies, others have limited or no experience. To that end I have prepared one or two sheets of advice about procedure, which I hope will be of help to Members and will give them some confidence when participating in debate.
I am content that the rulings I have given and the cautions I have issued to Members, even since the last sitting, have been appropriate.
MrMaskey has asked me to look at the accuracy of Hansard. I will certainly do so.

Mr Robert McCartney: rose.

Rt Hon David Trimble: On a point of order, Mr Presiding Officer.

Lord Alderdice: A point of order, and then —

Mr Robert McCartney: I think I was first on my feet, but if there is a pecking order, you are clearly observing it.

Lord Alderdice: I have already drawn Members’ attention to the fact that, while criticism of me personally may be quite understandable, criticism of the Chair in that way is not helpful.

Mr Robert McCartney: Mr Initial Presiding Officer —

Lord Alderdice: I have not yet sat down.

Rt Hon David Trimble: Mr Initial Presiding Officer, my point of order concerns earlierrulings — in particular, your references to newspapers and other papers. Was the action entirely appropriate? I am familiar with the practice at Westminster, where it is assumed that we have no papers and deliver speeches off the top of our heads in excellent English. That is the culture there.
To what extent is your ruling influenced by that culture? I recall that when we decided on the Assembly layout, and particularly this format with desks, the idea was to create a slightly different culture in this place. The desks are an acknowledgement that Members will have papers in front of them.
Perhaps you would like to reflect on your ruling, bearing in mind that deliberate decision to try to create a slightly different culture here. While I have the greatest respect for the practices and procedures of the House of Commons, I wonder whether this is simply a case of following all its rulings as if there were no difference in terms of layout.

Mr Robert McCartney: Further to that point of order, Mr Presiding Officer. It is quite illogical and inaccurate to suggest that because there are desks, Members should be allowed to bring in newspapers to be used in the way that one was used at our previous sitting. The desks are purely for our convenience for the placing of papers. They are not an invitation to read newspapers or a place on which to rest our elbows while we wave newspapers to display some notice on them.
If the desks are intended to support a change of culture to that type of behaviour, it is not a culture that I wish to be involved in or associated with.

Lord Alderdice: Both points of order addressed the same matter. First, I have been addressing the question of newspapers — not briefing papers or other such documents. I can understand that Members may wish to refer to documents, such as briefings, advice on speeches or notes and so on. I am referring specifically to newspapers.
There may be times when Members will wish to refer to newspapers and quote from them in the context of a speech. However, it was drawn to my attention that at the last plenary sitting a Member had brought in a newspaper and had conducted himself in a way that was intended to embarrass.
I viewed the video recording, and I have no doubt that that is a possible interpretation of the behaviour at that time. I have therefore ruled in regard to newspapers. For anyone to openly read a newspaper, other than in making a quotation, is a discourtesy to the House and to other Members, particularly the one who is speaking. I intend to hold to that ruling. [Interruption]
I am reminded of my ruling about mobile telephones, which seems to have been transiently breached, and I again advise Members that I wish to hold to that ruling. I am sure all Members will agree.

Mr Peter Robinson: I support entirely your ruling, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. It is the only sensible one in the circumstances, although some Members may wish to hold up a newspaper whose headlines speak more eloquently than they ever could. [Laughter]
10.45 am
I was one of those involved in determining the layout of the Chamber. I draw to your attention, lest in the number of points of order it go by default, that there was no intention — unless it was subconscious — to conduct business according to the type of wood in or the layout of the Chamber. There is no commitment to accept the present layout beyond the initial period, after which we will return to the matter, perhaps to decide a better arrangement.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Some Members are aware that I am the one who was reading the newspaper at the last sitting. At no time did I wave the newspaper. I sat and read it. It contained an article about a matter concerning designation that had been raised by MrFoster. I was surprised to discover from the article that, although in the House we are "Unionist", "Nationalist" or "Other", one party is all three. I thought that an important matter, and I wanted to read about it.
However, I accept your ruling, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. I will not read newspapers in the House if they might embarrass Members.

Lord Alderdice: I am not sure in what context that matter has been raised. It does not seem to be a point of order. I described MrFoster’s point of order on the matter as most ingenious because it was more a political point. I have viewed the video tape and given my ruling.

Procedural Consequences of Devolution

Mr Alan McFarland: I beg to move
That the Assembly approves the report prepared by the Ad Hoc Committee on the Procedural Consequences of Devolution and agrees to forward it to the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons.
The Ad Hoc Committee was established by the Assembly on 14September 1998 in response to a press notice from the Procedure Committee at Westminster. At its first meeting I was elected Chairman, and I am grateful to the members of the Committee for their unanimous support and for the co-operation and commitment they have demonstrated throughout the Committee’s work.
The Committee understood its remit to be the assessment of the changes that might be required to procedures at Westminster. It did not consider the procedural arrangements for the Assembly, and I have written to you separately about these matters.
Procedural consequences constitute an unusual and difficult subject, and an unfamiliar area for most members of the Committee. Initially we had difficulty in establishing the context. There was uncertainty about the Northern Ireland Bill, an absence of comparable Scottish and Welsh bodies, and a lack of agreed procedures in the Assembly.
The Committee chose to flesh out its collective knowledge through presentations. Members heard from an academic lawyer and a retired senior civil servant. We took advice from the Cabinet Office and from others on some of the more detailed aspects of our brief including the relationship with Europe. Copies of the written evidence that was submitted to the Committee have been placed in the Library, together with the minutes of proceedings. The Committee is grateful for the considerable assistance and general willingness of many people to help with its work. Most of the advice was offered on an informal and non-attributable basis, and I offer only a general note of gratitude to those who helped.
The Committee offered recommendations in two identified areas. First, we referred to Westminster procedures which the Committee felt should be modified; secondly, we referred to Westminster procedures which might be modified in the light of developments.
The key principles recognise the primacy of Westminster and the reality, in effect, of devolution — that for most people in Northern Ireland the Assembly would, de facto, be the Government. The Committee disagreed on only one area — that of the primacy of Westminster — and that required a vote at its last meeting. This is a factual matter with which some parties had difficulty. Apart from that, we agreed on most matters.
Consequently, the Committee recommends that Westminster should introduce changes to its handling of Questions on devolved matters, changes in how public expenditure on devolved matters is scrutinised and changes to the roles of Westminster Committees which focus on Northern Ireland. In practical terms this may mean an end to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, considerable contraction to the remit of the Northern Ireland Select Committee — with a counter-balancing increase in the responsibilities of Assembly Committees — and perhaps a new system for consulting the Assembly on European legislative proposals. The overriding factor is that we are giving our views on this. These remain, and will remain, questions for Members at Westminster to decide.
The report also confirms the relationship between Westminster and the Assembly, the authority of Westminster to scrutinise devolved arrangements through parliamentary questions and the continuing importance of Northern Ireland MPs in considering reserved and excepted matters.
One further, and topical, area of interest is that of the relationship with Europe. At present, proposals for EU legislation are channelled through Member states for consideration by domestic legislatures. There are about 1,200 proposals every year. These are whittled down, on grounds of relevance or effect, to about 50 for further action. The issue arises over how to provide for an input from the devolved Assemblies. The Committee believes there are sound financial reasons for not duplicating the initial sift of the 1,200 proposals. It would prefer consideration to be given to the 50 or so proposals that go to the EU Standing Committees at Westminster.
The Westminster Committee that deals with European legislation has indicated that it would be content to provide the Assembly with all its information on these proposals. This would give Members an opportunity to focus on the consideration of the most significant issues. Of course, it is for the Assembly to decide how else it wishes to be heard in Brussels, and I expect that this will be the subject of further consideration following our visit last week.
Other issues for further consideration include the impact of the Northern Ireland Bill when it becomes law, the relationship between this Assembly and the devolved bodies in Scotland and Wales once they are set up, and the wider issue of how this body will conduct its business. Indeed, the Assembly may wish to form its own Procedure Committee.
Mr Initial Presiding Officer, I would be grateful if you were to consider the issues that I have raised with you.
In closing, I wish to pay tribute to the Clerk of the Committee, who has provided outstanding support and service — often late into the night. We were on a tight timescale, and this required a great deal of extra work.
In addition, I wish to thank my fellow Committee members and commend their efforts. I want to pay tribute to the pragmatic, yet principled, approach taken by all of them as they identified the key issues and worked together to agree recommendations.
I am reminded of a House of Commons Committee Clerk who said famously that a committee was a cul-de-sac up which good ideas were led, there to be quietly strangled.
Throughout the seven meetings during which we produced a 4,000-word report with more than a dozen practical recommendations, there was rarely any disagreement. I have pointed out the one key area where there was disagreement as a result, I believe, of misunderstandings and simple drafting preferences. The real success that might emerge in this debate is that the Committee members sat down together and produced a report which was unanimously agreed, and I commend the report to the Assembly.

Mr Sam Foster: I support the report and commend Mr McFarland and the Committee for their excellent work. The procedural consequences of devolution for the people of Northern Ireland are not just administrative, and we must consider the actuality, the real intent. We have come a long way. The democratic deficit in NorthernIreland, which has lasted so long, is on the point of being left behind. Democracy almost prevails once again. That is important to us.
I agree with paragraph 44 of the report:
"In many respects the full impact of these changes can only be addressed when the system has become fully operational."
That is the effective reality of devolution, and Ulster Unionists have always sought such intent. We have endeavoured to be constructive for the overall well-being of the people of the Province. We have been positive while others — and they are present today — have sought the downfall of the Northern Ireland state through various methods of non-co-operation. Some have used so-called constitutional methods, while others have used the bomb and the bullet. We sincerely trust that such abhorrent and incredibly devious methods are now in the past. We look to the future. The potential is tremendous, and goodwill is evident throughout the world.
Most of us have just come back from Brussels where we heard the European Union’s words of good intent echoed over and over again. Those who fail to live up to such goodwill will face the world’s scorn. A real decision-making parliament within the United Kingdom is round the corner. It will provide the strength and resolve to make decisions for Northern Ireland, and those decisions will be made by the Northern Ireland people. We have yearned for that for the past three decades. There is room for all of us by such democratic means. Indeed, there can be no other way. Surely no one wants a return to destruction. Will the people ever forgive us if we fail in our task?
I agree that we are subordinate to the sovereign Government at Westminster. As an Ulster Unionist, I am pleased that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland has been copper-fastened by the British/Irish Good Friday Agreement. However, the spirit of that Agreement is being derailed by some with only ulterior motives. To achieve good government, we are all required to work for the common good of the people of Northern Ireland. They, and no others, elected us.
The base must be Stormont — and the first principle of good government is a home base. Secondly, honesty, integrity and responsibility must prevail, and good citizenship is of the essence. The Agreement encapsulates such requirements. If there were honesty and integrity, there would be immediate action on the issue of decommissioning. Cross-community trust and mutual respect would then prevail, and together we could look at economic and social issues and try to deal with them in a united way.
There are many issues to be faced. Employment problems, the acute agriculture crisis, education and health and personal social services require our attention.

Lord Alderdice: Order. The debate is on the procedural consequences for the House of Commons of devolution in Scotland, Wales and NorthernIreland. I have listened with some interest to the Member, but I am not sure that his speech bears on the matter that is before the Assembly. I must ask him to try to address the question which is to hand.

Mr Sam Foster: I am dealing with the consequences and responsibilities that we will have in government.

Lord Alderdice: Order. The report is not about the procedural consequences of devolution for the Assembly. It is about the procedural consequences of devolution for the House of Commons, and I ask the Member to try to draw his remarks in that direction. I have been fairly lenient and fairly broad in my acceptance of his remarks.

Mr Sam Foster: Progress towards government can move forward, but everyone must be committed. The serious moral issue of decommissioning cannot be ignored within this parliament of ours which we seek. The Assembly will be a parliament for Northern Ireland. We are working under the Westminster Parliament and Her Majesty’s Government, and I am pleased about that.
An important situation confronts Northern Ireland. Decommissioning is a big issue which I must argue before we get round to dealing with procedures. We need decommissioning now — not next week or next year. One cannot take out a mortgage if one does not face responsibility.

Lord Alderdice: The Member must understand that my ruling was fairly clear, and I must ask him to abide by it.

Mr Alban Maginness: The compilation of this report proved to be a very useful political exercise for the Assembly. Instead of its being a cul-de-sac, it opened up a highway of opportunity for all the Committee’s members. It brought us to a number of important and crucial issues, and it allowed us to examine them in relative calm and without serious contention or dispute.
It was an interesting political experiment for this Assembly in that we were trying to achieve political consensus in the context of an Assembly Committee. It is a subject that was likely to excite political opinion on all sides, and so it did. Nonetheless, we should congratulate the Committee on having reached consensus on all its major recommendations, and there was little dispute about the substance of the report.
It was an achievement, and it sets an example for the Assembly as to how we should approach political issues in the future. The word "consensus" does not mean hanging up or throwing out one’s political principles; it means reaching as much of a political agreement as one can within the context of the subject under discussion.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: The Committee reached consensus — and I recognise the clarity of the issue — but after what the Member has said today I am somewhat concerned about why, in Committee, he then voted against the final wording of the report.

Mr Alban Maginness: Of course, my party and I did not vote against the report. We support its recommendations, together with the substance of its text. There was disagreement on only one part of the text. Therefore my address to the Assembly remains consistent with the position that we adopted in the Committee.
Let me give credit to Mr McFarland for his independent and skilful chairmanship of the Committee. It was his approach that led to our achieving consensus, and the House owes him a considerable debt.
The report is well presented in terms of both its text and its arguments. It reflects the substantial shift in the political centre of gravity from London to Belfast and recognises the change in political culture which has been reflected in the setting up of this Assembly.
Transferred matters will be of primary concern to this House, not Westminster, and substantial changes will flow from that by way of how Westminster deals with NorthernIreland. This has been reflected in the report where we have recommended that the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons modifies the Standing Orders of the Northern Ireland Select and Grand Committees. That will reflect the fact that a substantial amount of decision-making will flow to this House.
When the House of Commons considers the future of Select Committees it may decide to change or restrict them. One cannot second-guess, but that may apply in particular to the Select Committee on NorthernIreland Affairs.
This report is useful because it enables us to examine issues that we did not expect to examine. I mention in particular the issue of European legislation because this body must consider seriously its input to the shaping, framing and amendment of EU legislation. This is an important matter for the Assembly, and we must examine procedures for influencing the input of the Administration at Westminster to European legislation. Such legislation is, of course, the province of the Commission and the European Parliament, but the preliminaries for devising and framing it are matters for Westminster and, let us hope, in part, the Assembly.
It is important to return to the issue of European legislation, and I suggest that the Assembly set up its own European Committee to consider not only European legislation but the wide gamut of European issues, of which this House is more conscious as a result of the visit to Brussels last week. It is important for us to support this useful report. Members should read it in detail and draw conclusions from it.
There will be future work for the Committee. The Northern Ireland Bill has not completed its passage through the House of Commons, and there remains the setting up of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Serious questions for us to re-examine will arise from these matters.
I commend the report to the House. It was a useful political exercise, successfully completed, and it provides a model for the future. If we work in future as well as we did on the report we will make considerable progress in creating real and sustained consensus, and that must be for the good of our constituents.

Rev William McCrea: I join the Committee Chairman in welcoming the report, which was commissioned under the Assembly’s terms of reference that are mentioned in paragraph 2:
"to consider the procedural consequences of devolution as they are likely to affect the relationship between, and working of, the NorthernIreland Assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament."
At times the Chairman of the Committee had difficulty in focusing some members’ attention on the Committee’s remit and duty; on how its deliberations would affect the Procedure Committee at Westminster; and on the changes which may be necessary in procedures at Westminster in the light of devolution.
Discussion and debates in Committee were wide-ranging. The successful presentation of the report is due to the diligent manner in which the subject was approached, the expert presentations and the work of the Committee Clerk.
The subject matter is of primary importance. The establishment of appropriate procedures at Westminster — the sovereign Parliament — must not be overlooked. Some Members have placed interpretations on the report. I say to the Chairman and to MrMaginness that they are trying to put a slant on the report which is not there. In the Belfast Agreement there was tremendous emphasis on trying to dilute the power and authority of the sovereign Parliament at Westminster and at the same time a strengthening of the relationship with Dublin. That is one of the reasons I and my colleagues voted against the Agreement and make no apology for so doing.
Northern Ireland’s finances come from and are voted on at Westminster. It is therefore vital that lines of communication be clear and that ties with the national Parliament remain strong. The report acknowledges the vital role of Westminster, but the interpretation that some are putting on it seems to play down the primacy of Parliament. The essential role of the Members of Parliament must be preserved rather than diminished. Some on the Committee shied away from parliamentary scrutiny and said that there might not be a role for the Select and Grand Committees at Westminster. However, that is not what paragraph 8 says. It states
"In April 1998 the agreement of parties in Northern Ireland led, following elections, to the establishment of a shadow Assembly to which power would be devolved early in 1999. Paragraph 33 of Strand One of the Agreement describes the continuing role for Westminster and in particular confirms a continuing role for the Grand and Select Committees."
The Agreement confirmed the continued role of the Grand and Select Committees. The impression has been given that major changes should be made. However, while modifications may have to be made, we must remember that he who pays the piper has the right to call the tune. Are we suggesting that while Westminster gives the money for the running of Northern Ireland, Members of Parliament will have no power of scrutiny of how that money is being spent? That money is important for Northern Ireland, and Members of Parliament should have the right to ensure that it is used in the best interests of the citizens of this part of the United Kingdom.
During our discussions, the key principles were outlined in paragraph 9. It states
"The Northern Ireland Act 1998 will set out the legislative competence of the Assembly. The provisions of the Northern Ireland Bill explicitly emphasise that the United Kingdom Parliament retains the power to legislate on any subject throughout the United Kingdom."
Note the words
"explicitly emphasise that the United Kingdom Parliament retains the power to legislate on any subject throughout the United Kingdom."
Some Members wanted to sideline Westminster completely and give the impression that all we want is to take the money and say "Goodbye." The previous draft of the report stated clearly
"Essentially the fundamental basis for the relationship between the Assembly and Westminster lies in the clear understanding that matters which are transferred to the Assembly are its responsibility and its responsibility alone."
That was removed, as was the recommendation that, following devolution, transferred matters should become essentially the sole preserve of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Paragraph 13 previously stated
"The Committee believes that, as was previously the case under devolution, questions on transferred matters should be taken only in the Assembly. Questions to Ministers in the House of Commons should be ruled out of order and referred to Belfast. Questions on transferred matters are matters for the Northern Ireland Assembly and should not be taken at Westminster."
All those statements were removed. I had the privilege and honour of being a Member of that House for 14years. Those remaining at Westminster and those who desire to go there will certainly want to ensure that their constituents get the best possible government. If there are matters that they think the Assembly is not handling correctly they have a right to raise them at Westminster. There ought to be open democracy, whether it be in this Chamber or in —

Ms Brid Rodgers: Will the Member give way?

Rev William McCrea: No, for I am finishing.
The report acknowledges that there are important issues that need further detailed scrutiny. We flagged some of them as we came across them, though not all were strictly within our present remit. This is not a final report. It will be necessary to revisit many of the issues in the light of experience. However, I genuinely feel that the report will make a valuable contribution to the development of procedures at Westminster, permitting Members of the national Parliament to retain a vital and important role in the democratic process, and allowing us to exercise the power which has been devolved to us.
I wish once again to compliment all those who helped in the preparation of this report, especially the Committee Clerk, and to note the vital role that the Chairman of the Committee, MrAlanMcFarland, played in our deliberations. I commend the report to the Assembly.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirligh, I would like to join the other Committee members in commending the Chairperson, MrAlanMcFarland, for presiding over, with great difficulty at times, the preparation of a report which, as SinnFein stated when the interim report was presented, was, in essence, premature. However, in terms of learning, this was a valuable process, and the Committee’s members addressed themselves to the remit. It was an interesting political exercise.
There was substantial agreement on many of the questions posed by the remit, including the transferred matters and co-operation with other assemblies. There are also glaring omissions, such as the procedural consequences of devolution in the context of the North/South bodies. Most members worked their way through the many constitutional questions raised by the remit, but others sought to put their own political spin on it. This was not in the spirit either of learning or of the Good Friday Agreement.
The final draft of the report was given to the Committee on Friday 30 October, shortly before the meeting began. Sinn Fein noted a number of changes, or additions, to the draft that had been presented to us at the bilateral meeting and on which we had agreed in principle. What appears to have happened, a Chathaoirligh, in respect of paragraph 9 is that the text has been added to in a manner which, I believe, goes beyond what the Committee was asked to do.
Some aspects of the draft document still present that difficulty. Instead of commenting, as we were asked to do, the report tells Parliament what it should do. Unionist representatives on the Committee — and this is where the disagreement comes in — engaged in a semantic exercise designed to appear to tighten the relationship between the Assembly and Westminster. This is not within the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.
Devolution apart, the Six Counties Assembly is equated with the projected devolution in Scotland and Wales, although these bodies have not been set up. The North of Ireland Assembly and the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies are set up under different Acts and with widely differing powers. The processes cannot be equated.
The remit of the Ad Hoc Committee was simply to consider or comment on the changes necessary and the constitutional implications for Westminster as a consequence of the legislation resulting from the Good Friday Agreement. The additions to paragraph 9, beginning at the third line from the bottom, obviously relate to the Unionist strategy of seeking to entrench the Union, in spite of the all-island dynamics of the Good Friday Agreement.
This exercise, played out in the bilaterals, is essentially about plugging holes in the initial draft, which left the relationship with Westminster too much of a hostage to fortune. Neither draft — not even the final one — takes cognisance of the fact that the concept of sovereignty over the Six Counties has changed inalterably. However, the draft document presented to the Committee on 30 October, and currently before the Assembly, represents a clear shift away, in spirit and in substance, from the essential implications of the Good Friday Agreement for Westminster’s relationship with the Assembly. It is these implications, and their constitutional significance, which profoundly distinguish this Assembly from what is planned for Scotland, Wales and, indeed, England — something with which the Unionists in the Committee refused to deal.
It is for that reason that we had their attempts in the bilaterals to rewrite the draft in the same way as they attempt to rewrite the Good Friday Agreement. The amendments are tied up with their anachronistic political assumption — the assumption of Thatcher — that Belfast is as British as Finchley. It is not. We have moved on, a Chathaoirligh, and the Devolution Committee at Westminster in its press release, which became the remit for this Ad Hoc Committee, recognised that.
That is why they sought our comments. That is why my party objected to the Unionists’ conclusions, which refused to recognise that sovereignty is redefined by the Good Friday Agreement and that this addition to the previously agreed draft was, and still is, unnecessary.
In spite of the Committee Chairman’s assertions that there was agreement on the report — there was, in many instances — it was not unanimous. It would therefore be in the best interests of the Committee and of the Assembly to refer back to the Committee a number of issues arising from the report so that unanimity could be reached before it is sent to Westminster.
I too pay tribute to the Chairperson and to the Clerk for his very hard work, late hours and the manner in which he provided us with all the necessary documents. Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirligh.

Mr Seamus Close: I recall the Assembly’s meeting on 5 October, when the Committee presented its interim report. MrPeterRobinson asked me if I was confident that the Committee could produce a good report by the new deadline. I expressed my hope that a full report, which would be educational and helpful to Members, could be produced by the new deadline, which is today, 9 November. We have met our deadline and produced a full report, which will help Members to understand better the relationships between the Assembly and Westminster.
The report, in its various recommendations, looks forward to full devolution of powers to the Assembly. It clearly demonstrates the necessity to equip those to whom power has been devolved with the necessary authority to exercise it. I therefore caution those who use phrases such as "He who pays the piper". This is not a puppet parliament, nor a Fisher Price parliament. The Assembly will exercise real power on those issues that are transferred to it. And that is the significant part. We will have that right. In fact, we demand it.
This afternoon, when the Minister outlines his priorities on public expenditure, for example, I hope to hear Members’ views on how taxpayers’ moneys should be spent here. We have the right to determine our priorities and produce the best package for the people. That is part and parcel of the relationship between here and Westminster. We want to exercise power without undue interference.
The report deals with all the salient issues. We have also earmarked other areas that the Assembly needs to examine. For example, reference has been made to European legislation, an understanding of which is an essential part of political life for us. I believe that the Assembly must have a European Committee, but it will be up to the House to take that issue further. Proper procedures must be established now to enable us to reach fundamental decisions on how to move forward on those areas.
In commending the report to the House, I would be remiss not to pay special tribute to the Committee’s Chairman, MrMcFarland, and its Clerk. Together, they led the work of the Committee. They demonstrated, through diplomacy and dialogue, that it is possible to reach understandings and agreements, of which this report is a product.

Mr Robert McCartney: I had not intended to speak in this debate but I have been so impressed with the plethora of nauseating, self-congratulatory compliments that have been flying about that I find it necessary to inject a note of realism into the proceedings. This Committee was not, as appears to be the case, playing happy families. Its members attended, as I did, having been charged with a particular duty — dealing with the remit.
Much has been said about the great work that is being done and the great endeavours that are being made. A competent lawyer, had he been furnished with the relevant material, could have reached the same conclusions in half a day.

Mr Sammy Wilson: What would he have charged?

Mr Robert McCartney: The prophet of a magnificent report has asked a question. The answer is considerably less than the salaries of those who were actually involved.
The impression is being given, particularly by MrMaginness, the Member for North Belfast, that this was a sort of chapel of consensual ecumenism. It was nothing of the sort.
One may oppose, as I most strongly do, Sinn Fein’s views — their political objectives as well as their methodology — but when it came to the issues that are important to them, they made it clear what they wanted. They wanted the removal of all the references in this report to the sovereignty of the UnitedKingdom Parliament. They made no bones about that, and there was a very heated, but honest, debate about the issue of sovereignty. What was most notable was that the party representatives who voted against the inclusion of the term "sovereignty" in paragraph 9 of this report were not from Sinn Fein (its members abstained); they were MrMaginness and his colleague MrDallat.
The truth is that beneath all this apparently consensual behaviour, other agendas and directions are being constantly pushed. They are being pushed in the direction of a united Ireland by the SDLP as assiduously as by SinnFein, but with a much lesser degree of open honesty.
I want to turn to two relevant issues — one being the question of our association with Europe. Those from the pro-Union side who were on this Committee and who were also involved in the trip to Brussels should realise that those on the other side of this Assembly favour NorthernIreland’s becoming some sort of autonomous region within Europe and being entitled to a direct input.
Indeed, the silliness of this argument, in its most extreme form, was advanced by MrFarren, who failed to realise that the only people who can make a direct commitment are the member states, and there is no member state entitled "NorthernIreland". A fatuous and irrelevant association with the regions in Europe, particularly the German Länder, was advanced at one of the meetings that we had with a member of the European Parliament, HerrBrock. He made it quite clear that there was a fundamental distinction between a unitary sovereign state with devolved mixed legislatures and a federal government such as the Federal Government of what is now a united Germany.
All the time, however, despite the appearance of consensus, people were pushing their own agendas and pushing hard for a united Ireland. Let no one be mistaken about that. Something else which will become increasingly apparent to Members of the Assembly who are not part of the central caucus is the enormous amount of mutual back-scratching and self-congratulation that is going on in the two major parties who appear to think that they can run the Assembly on their own and that all the other parties are irrelevant. That will not be the case, but that will not prevent them from trying to make it happen. Excitement at the prospect of office is causing one party to suffer convulsions, and, no doubt, the other is about to become epileptic.
Members should have no doubts about the intended purpose of this report. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and will remain part of the United Kingdom, and we should endeavour to ensure that this situation is permanent. Those people, supposedly on the pro-Union side, who are pussyfooting around with arrangements designed, apparently, to keep them in a position of power should be conscious that this is not possible, because decommissioning and other related issues are, beyond any doubt, not part of the Agreement. They are not in the Agreement because some people were prepared to acquiesce in a dishonest process. This Committee, to a very large extent, reflected that problem.
The report, however, does state relatively clearly what the Committee’s response to its remit was. That remit was not particularly complex; the Committee looked at those powers which were transferred to the Assembly, those powers which were excepted and reserved to Westminster and at the question of the future handling of business currently dealt with by bodies at Westminster.
The report deals with these matters adequately; MrMcFarland was a tolerant and understanding Chairman, and the Committee Clerk was assiduous, efficient and courteous at all times, providing a great deal of assistance to the Committee. However, we should not persist in the nonsensical belief that members of Committees are involved in a prodigious volume of work.
I attended meetings of this Committee as frequently as anyone; I participated in the Committee’s debates as much as any member — if not more — but I cannot pretend that I was burdened with an enormous amount of work, nor was I required to expend a vast amount of intellectual energy.
I commend this somewhat less than magnificent report to the House.

Mr David Ervine: I would like to pay tribute to the Chairman of the Committee. Even though the report’s findings did not receive unanimous support, he was certainly unanimously elected as Chairman — a first time for that. He conducted those proceedings which I attended very well, and he was ably assisted by the Committee Clerk who also deserves credit for his work in the short time that we had to put this report together.
Unfortunately, I detect a sense of resentment in relation to this report — resentment that, I fear, comes from SinnFein, who are almost suggesting that this report is not in the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement. But to do so is to miss the most important part. NorthernIreland shall remain part of the UnitedKingdom for as long as the greater number of people wish.
This fact is reflected adequately and of necessity in this report; it is about the creation of a tier of government and how it fits into that tier of government which undoubtedly has primacy, and that primacy is clearly identified, not only in the Belfast Agreement, but also in our work and the fact that we have a Secretary of State. SinnFein’s apparent self-denial of all these things is a form of resentment from which they would do well to move away.
On the basis that I have been sold out, I am delighted to hear that NorthernIreland is going to remain part of the United Kingdom. Hansard will show that MrMcCartney said so. Of course, he would.
The establishment of the NorthernIreland Assembly provides the opportunity to exercise power locally through the Belfast Agreement, within the context of the sovereignty of a Parliament at Westminster. This Committee had a job to do in terms of how we are to fit in and how to create circumstances where this could be seen as the first salvo perhaps, the first in the establishment of a two-way street between Westminster and Belfast. Such conditions will not weaken the umbilical cord; they will strengthen it.
This will not be the only umbilical cord; one will also be connected to Cardiff, to Edinburgh and to Dublin, and these will begin to deal with healing the relationships that have been fractured over many years.
This is a recommendation — a recommendation that will land on the desks at Westminster, and it will be decided on by those who have sovereignty. All we can hope is that they pay attention to what we want to achieve. By recommending this report we are saying here is a Belfast that wants to prosper, here is a Belfast that wants to do well, a Belfast that recognises that it has to have stronger relationships, not weaker.
This Assembly is devolved — not divorced — from Westminster, and some Members must pay serious attention to that fact. They will have to make all the facets of the Belfast Agreement work. Are we accusing SinnFein as they have accused us in the past, of being á la carte in relation to the Good Friday Agreement? It is time for SinnFein to wake up and play a serious role — this should have been a unanimous report. I hope that SinnFein will reflect and amend their attitude to what, I think, is a very good report — a report which is the first salvo in the strengthening of the umbilical cord between Belfast and Westminster.

Ms Jane Morrice: Many Members seem to have become confused about what the Committee set out to do. I would like to refer to the points made by MrMcCartney, MrMcCrea and Mrs Nelis about devolution.
Good Friday Agreement or not, devolution, whether in NorthernIreland or Scotland, equals a dilution of power. There is no getting away from that fact. Devolution means diluting power at the centre and transferring it to the regions. It means strengthening the power of this Assembly in NorthernIreland and strengthening the power of the people of NorthernIreland. For some reason we have not yet grasped the full meaning of devolution. MrMcCartney referred to the German federalist system, but devolution within the UnitedKingdom is in a UnitedKingdom context. It could be seen as a first step towards federalism, towards confederalism or towards subsidiarity.
We have to appreciate that devolution is a dilution of power.
Mrs Nelis said that sovereignty has been redefined by the Good Friday Agreement. I disagree. Sovereignty has been redefined by the Labour Government’s handing over power to Scotland, Wales and NorthernIreland, with or without the Good Friday Agreement. We must open the doors of NorthernIreland and let the moths out. What we are talking about is devolution of power within the United Kingdom, not divorce — dilution to strengthen our hand and the hand of our people. That is the important point.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Would the Member accept that dissolving of power is not the point in question? It is the transferring of powers to a different region that we are talking about. We are not dissolving power, we are transferring that power to be administered by the people of this region.

Ms Jane Morrice: Mr Paisley agrees with what I said. We are dissolving and diluting the power at Westminster and strengthening the power in Belfast.

Mr Peter Robinson: Delegation.

Ms Jane Morrice: No. The power of Westminster without any doubt is being lessened, and the powers of Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh are being strengthened. Let me move to the point.
I want to respond to certain points that have been made in the Chamber. I apologise for not initially commending the report, the work of the Chairman, Mr McFarland, and the Clerk, MrReynolds, and my colleagues on the Committee for contributing constructively to the debate.
MrMcCartney did not want to state that he was working hard, but we had to work hard to respond to many of his contributions. He suggested that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and will remain so. However, we must also remember — and this is a point that has been raised before but not by certain other Members — that NorthernIreland, Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland are parts of the European Union. In talking about the United Kingdom’s devolving power, we have to appreciate that not only is power being devolved from Westminster to Belfast, it has already been devolved upwards from Westminster to Brussels. There are three stages of the devolution process.

Mr Alban Maginness: Would the Member agree that the concept of sovereignty that has been much bandied about this morning as it was in the Committee, is an outmoded concept? Sovereignty as such, in the latter part of the twentieth century, does not exist. If you are a member of NATO and the European Union, if you are a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights or any other international conventions, you have in effect, pooled sovereignty with other bodies, other countries and other communities. Therefore, the concept of sovereignty is outmoded and old-fashioned and should be jettisoned.

Ms Jane Morrice: I am grateful to the Member — it might be excessive to jettison the concept of sovereignty, but I totally agree that the idea and the nature of sovereignty is changing as we move forward in a new world where there is new thinking and more democracy.
To jettison it might be to let go too quickly. We need to understand the new forms it will take and the new allegiances, and powers and procedures that will flow therefrom. I am delighted that this debate is actually covering issues that go far beyond the borders of Northern Ireland, setting Northern Ireland in context within these islands, within Europe and within the world. It is valuable that the debate is, rightly, going in that direction.
My last point concerns what I would call the "nearly all-party" agreement in the Committee. I am disappointed that a full consensus was not reached. It was a very valuable working experience for us as Committee members, and while we did not reach a consensus, we all listened to each other and took on board what others were saying. Nobody walked out, and nobody stomped out, and there was no anger. We arrived at a report which will guide us forward in the future.
I underline issues such as European legislation, which the House should examine in the future. Mr Foster made a valuable point about the important role Europe has played. We should look at how we relate to Brussels. This will be very important. Mr McCartney suggested that it was silly to consider this, that we could not go directly to Europe. We have a direct flight to Europe, which 90% of the representatives here used last week. We can go directly to Europe, formally or informally.
I commend the report and the "nearly all-party" agreement, and I thank my colleagues for their work.

Mr Derek Hussey: I rise at the risk of becoming another political pygmy in the "cycloptic" shadow of MrMcCartney — but then a Cyclops has only one eye.
I pay tribute to Mr McFarland and thank him for the capable way in which he led us through our work. I also thank Joe Reynolds, the Committee Clerk, who was brilliant at getting materials to us in time, in spite of the problems we have in the west with the post. But perhaps that will be dealt with at another time. I also pay tribute to those with expert opinions who attended our deliberations and informed us. I congratulate all members for the way in which they approached the task that was given to us. Our remit was relevant to both the Northern Ireland Assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament.
I will return later to section 9.
With regard to recommendation 17, I hope that Questions on Northern Ireland will continue to be taken every four weeks. The period for Questions has been reduced from 40 to 30 minutes to take account of devolution. This body does not wish to see that period reduced any further, because it remains important that our Members of Parliament at Westminster have adequate time to scrutinise the actions of the Secretary of State, particularly on reserved and excepted matters.
Paragraphs 20 to 24 of the report should be considered in conjunction with paragraphs 37 to 41. Here it is emphasised that there is still work to be done. The report suggests an evolving situation.
On the European issue the report describes how we have an input into the internal workings of Westminster on Europe via the Select Committee on EU legislation and the two European Standing Committees. This was not mentioned in the report, but it has certainly been mentioned in debate. I believe, MrInitial Presiding Officer, that you have been made aware of this Committee’s concern. It would be right for us to retain a high-profile regional influence. I accept that direct input is by way of our sovereign Parliament, but it is certainly vital — I am sure that all who were in Brussels last week would agree — that we must retain a high regional influence. That is something which the Assembly must take on board.
I wish to conclude by referring to section 9. The concept of sovereignty, when taken within a European context, is quite interesting. The French, for example, have their viewpoint on sovereignty, even though the European Union would have certain considerations for the whole of Europe. Perhaps we in the UnitedKingdom could learn from the French and be prepared to take a stand on behalf of our people.
SinnFein’s admission that it viewed the addition of the extra sentence as a tightening of the relationship between the Northern Ireland Assembly and Westminster — with the retrenchment of the Union — is quite interesting. The additional sentence is, I am sure, in the opinion of those on this side of the House, and perhaps others, merely a summing-up of the facts which were expressed in the preceding part of section 9.
In Committee I asked if the previous part of section 9 was acceptable to everyone. The reply was that it was acceptable. I would ask Members to read the second last sentence.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Does MrHussey accept that in paragraph 41, we not only have the statement of sovereignty, but also the implication of sovereignty? More power is going to go to Westminster, and there will be a greater role for Westminster because it is proposed that a Committee on Regional Affairs be established to scrutinise even further the powers that are now to be devolved to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Mr Derek Hussey: I can only agree with Mr Paisley.
Sinn Fein’s main concern was with the absence of a reference to the fact that the establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly provides the opportunity to exercise power locally. Sinn Fein was determined that reference should be made there to the Belfast Agreement. After deliberation and adjournment it was agreed that a reference to the Belfast Agreement could be included, and then the goalposts were moved. I do not know why — I have my suspicions. Also, SinnFein did not vote against this addition. Why not? I would point out that on a word count 99.5% of this report is acceptable. That is a much higher rate of agreement than we have had on other things.
I commend the report to the Assembly.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I would like to thank the Chairman and Clerk of the Committee for the way in which they conducted the business of the committee and for steering us towards what I believe — despite what MrMcCartney, who is now absent, may have said — is a magnificent report. Magnificence can be measured in a number of ways but according to the dictionary it can be judged by the greatness of the achievement of a particular issue or document.
Using that criterion this is a magnificent report. To deal with complex issues in only 13 pages is quite an achievement. [Laughter]
12.00
It is magnificent in that it addresses all the questions that the Committee was asked to deal with. That would be quite an achievement for any politician. As my colleague RevWilliamMcCrea has said, the report emphasises the primacy and the sovereignty of the UnitedKingdom Parliament. Item 8 of the minutes of the proceedings of the Committee of 30October states
"The Chairman then proposed that the Committee accept the revised Report as the final Report of the Committee."
Although some Members absolutely oppose the word "Westminster" crossing their lips, the document says
"It was agreed unanimously."
I repeat that the report is magnificent.
The DUP approach was to set out clear objectives and, unlike MrFoster, we did not lose our focus. One objective was to make sure that any change in procedures at Westminster as a result of devolution in NorthernIreland, did not diminish NorthernIreland’s position within the UnitedKingdom. The report is permeated with the fact that Westminster retains sovereignty over NorthernIreland, and that has been agreed.
Sinn Fein realised rather late, when it had considered all aspects of the report, that the sovereignty of Westminster remains. I suspect that if target words that always trigger responses in the minds of Sinn Fein had been omitted, it might not have noticed that at all. When it saw the words in paragraph 9 —
"remain the preserve of the Parliament at Westminster, include such matters as sovereignty" —
dissension started to appear. However, as MrHussey has already said, the whole thrust of the paragraph before comment was that the Westminster Parliament is sovereign. It states
"The provisions of the NorthernIreland Bill explicitly emphasise that the United Kingdom Parliament retains the power to legislate on any subject throughout the UnitedKingdom."
It concludes
"Consequently, the establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly provides the opportunity to exercise power locally through the Belfast Agreement within the context of the sovereignty of Parliament at Westminster".
The only part that Sinn Fein disagreed with was that little phrase, but when voting on the whole report it voted on it all. That is a magnificent achievement.
Mr McElduff had a bad weekend. He took on a Dutchman in Brussels. Irish Republicans should have learned that, whether it be 1690 or 1998, they should not take on the Dutch. He did not follow the party line but engaged in antisocial behaviour in Brussels, and I am amazed that he has not ended up in a wheelchair the same way as MartinMcGuinness.
Let us look at the relationship between Westminster and the Assembly. There is the ability to question the role of Committees and our roles in finance and legislation. The report recognises that the Assembly will have the authority to deal with those matters, as one would expect with devolution, but overall power will still reside at Westminster.
There was no dissension about paragraph 17, which says
"A period for questions on Northern Ireland ought to be retained at Westminster".
Westminster will still have its finger on the pulse.
According to paragraph 13, while transferred matters will be dealt with primarily by the Assembly, there will still be provision for Questions to be asked in the House of Commons. Of course, as one would expect, the Questions will then be referred to the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, and the answer made available to MPs at Westminster. Westminster’s role in scrutinising and questioning what happens in NorthernIreland has not been diminished.
Paragraph 24 recommends that Committees should retain the ability to examine expenditure, administration and policy matters. However, an Assembly Committee dealing with a specific issue should not be duplicated in the House of Commons. That is a sensible recommendation.
We have said
"There should be a review of the Select Committee system to prevent duplication of the work of the devolved legislature."
But those Committees will still have the same role as they have had previously. With regard to finance. For example, paragraph 29 says
"Westminster should retain responsibility for oversight of the appropriation of funds into the NorthernIreland Office budget".
Of course, one would expect that. The scrutinising of individual matters could probably be dealt with in greater detail by an Assembly public accounts committee, but financial scrutiny will remain at Westminster.
In terms of legislation, paragraph 31 says
"the United Kingdom Parliament retains the power to legislate on any subject throughout the UnitedKingdom."
Paragraph 32 says
"Whilst it will remain possible for any Member at Westminster to propose a Private Member’s Bill on any matter".
It will still be possible to do this, although it does say that past experience suggests that it is not likely that many such proposals will become law.
We have indeed produced a magnificent report and, as MrMcCartney has said, with the minimum of effort. I contend that it was produced at significantly less cost than his lawyer friends would have charged had they been asked to produce it.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat as na focail deasa sin.

Lord Alderdice: Order.

Mr Barry McElduff: A Cheann Comhairle, nílimid ar aon intinn amháin, ní gá a rá. Caithfidh mise a rá nach bhfuilimid ar aon intinn amháin, go háirithe sa dóigh ina bhfuil na páirtithe éagsúla ar an taobh eile den Seomra ag iarraidh neamhaird a dhéanamh de Chomhaontú Aoine an Chéasta. Ach, sin mar atá.
I want to support Mr Alban Maginness’s assertion that this is not an agreed report in that the substance of the report has not been agreed — there was an absence of consensus. I commend the Chairman and the Committee Clerk for the way they presided over the meetings, and I want to reiterate the point that it was difficult for many Members to focus on the precise remit.
I will keep my comments brief. I want to underline issues raised by MrsMaryNelis, our group spokesperson. We constantly and consistently objected to attempts by Unionist participants in the Ad Hoc Committee for comfort blankets to be extended to them — trying to have the umbilical cord of Westminster written in, line after line.
No Nationalist member of the Committee sought any such comfort blanket. When a vote was taken — and this is crucial — no Nationalist supported the report or its contents. I ask for a ruling from you, a Chathaoirligh, as to whether a vote on this report should be taken in the Assembly today. SinnFein’s preference is that this report should be referred back to the Committee for further examination in the hope of arriving at consensus eventually. Clearly we have not got this as yet. Sin an méid atá le rá agamsa ar an ábhar sin. Go raibh míle maith agaibh.

Lord Alderdice: Let me say something about a request that has now come forward for a second time — initially from Assembly Member MrsMaryNelis and now from Assembly Member MrBarryMcElduff. The only procedural way to take matters back would be for the Chairman of the Committee, Mr McFarland, to withdraw the motion or for the Question not to be put.
It is not possible to ask for individual matters in the report to be taken back. I make this point because in other forums where Members operate — in local government, for example — this is often a practice, but there is no procedural means of doing that here at present.
In terms of any other motions in respect of particular matters being brought forward, it is now too late to put down any amendments. Therefore the only way in which the matter could be discussed by the Assembly is by leave of the House, which means by unanimous agreement of those who are present. These are the only ways in which the matter could be dealt with.
As to the question of there being a vote, of course there will be a vote. This is a motion, and there will be a vote. When the Question is put, it will become apparent whether a formal division is necessary, but this is a motion to accept the report, and therefore there will be an opportunity for the House to give its view.

Mr Peter Robinson: The representative from the Women’s Coalition, Ms Morrice, said that we should all understand what devolution was and then went on to display ignorance of what it was. She seems to have a misconception about power and authority, about dissolving — although I am not quite sure what she meant by that — or delegating authority. She took umbrage at my suggesting that devolution was about delegating authority, but that is precisely what devolution is about.
The day after devolution happens, if it does, power will still reside, technically and legally, at Westminster — delegated authority may come here, but the power will still reside at Westminster.
First, it is important to deal with the split personalities in Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein Members were among those who applauded this report in the Committee. They agreed it, along with every other member of the Committee. The record is clear:
"The Chairman then proposed that the Committee accept the revised Report as the final Report of the Committee; it was agreed unanimously."
There appears to be some ineptitude on the part of those representing Sinn Fein on the Committee. They agreed to something that their betters outside the Committee do not agree to, and they are raising smoke to hide their embarrassment. They agreed the report, and it will be interesting to see if they have the support of other SinnFein Members when it comes to the vote, or whether they prove that some of them are "not fit to be allowed out on their own" — a phrase which, I think, was used on the BBC.
There are three issues that arise from the report. I come more from MrMcCartney’s position — I do not think there is anything magnificent about the report. To say it is magnificent because it is 13 pages long, stretches the notion of magnificence.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Succinct.

Mr Peter Robinson: On that basis it could have been even more magnificent. However, there are considerable improvements in this final report from an earlier edition. Colleagues in my own party, and in other parties, are to be congratulated on the clawback achieved in the later Committee stages.
I want to deal, in particular, with three issues — questions in the House of Commons, Committees dealing with Northern Ireland in the House of Commons, and financial accountability in the House of Commons. As far as Questions in the House are concerned, the report makes it very clear — and I want to put this interpretation on the record — that questions on transferred matters are primarily for the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The use of the word "primarily" indicates very clearly that it is not a matter exclusively for the Assembly and, therefore, Questions on transferred matters can, and should, properly be asked at Westminster. It may be that the Secretary of State will be restricted in what she, or a future he, may say on the issue, referring it to the appropriate Minister in Northern Ireland and tabling, for the record, the response given.
That is not any different from what happens when questions are asked on the activities of the various agencies. The response is tabled in the Library and, on some occasions, included in Hansard. The issue of questions is, therefore, dealt with adequately in the report and indicates an ongoing role for the House of Commons.
I am sure that the Ulster Unionists will be delighted with this ongoing role. All the SDLP Members of Parliament are in this Chamber and, therefore, entitled to ask questions; all the Democratic Unionist Members of Parliament are in this Chamber and entitled to ask Questions; the United Kingdom Unionist Member of Parliament is in this Chamber and entitled to ask questions; and the two loyal Members of Her Majesty’s Opposition from Sinn Fein, although they have not taken the oath as yet, are also in the Chamber.
Of course, two Members of the Ulster Unionist Party are in the Chamber as well. They are entitled to ask questions, and I am sure that they will be rooting for the six Ulster Unionist Members of Parliament who are not in this Chamber. They would want to give them a full role in scrutinising what is happening in Northern Ireland and also give them the opportunity to ask questions of the Ministers who will be responsible for the various Departments.
The report quite properly suggests that the role of the NorthernIreland Grand Committee will be considerably reduced, and that some consideration will have to be given to its future life. Unlike the Select Committees, the NorthernIreland Grand Committee does not have any real scrutiny role, and it may become redundant.
A Select Committee is very different. I am glad to see that the report makes it clear that the only restriction that would be considered in relation to the Select Committee’s role is on duplication. I assume that means that if the Assembly were considering roads issues in some committee, a Commons Select Committee would not consider those same issues at the same time. Such duplication would be quite unnecessary. If bodies are looking into various aspects of NorthernIreland life, the Select Committee will stay away from those issues — at least until reports have been issued. Therefore I do not think that there will be such duplication.
There is a need for a good relationship to be built up between the Assembly and the Select Committee so that each will know what the other is scrutinising and examining. Here again, the Committee has made a good fist of its recommendation in relation to the Commons Committees. I have some difficulty in relation to the financial scrutiny arrangements. I remind MsMorrice that there is a difference between delegating authority and exercising the authority that has been delegated, and the right of Parliament to scrutinise what has gone on. Delegated authority can be fully exercised, but that must be subject to scrutiny.
Scrutiny is especially important in the context of the kind of governmental arrangements in the Assembly, where effectively there is either no Opposition or a fairly limited one, because most of the parties enjoy some governmental authority. In the absence of a full-blown, full-time Opposition, there is an excellent scrutiny role for the Select Committee at Westminster.

Mr Robert McCartney: Does the Member consider that last week’s revelations by the Audit Commission in relation to the Industrial Development Board and the misinformation that was being provided to the public to aid the political progress of the NorthernIreland Office are typical examples of what he is concerned about?

Mr Peter Robinson: Yes. It is hard to predict what might happen after devolution. The Opposition might consist of the Back-Benchers from all parties. They may scrutinise what ministerial teams are doing or they may not. They may refrain from going too far in case that makes life difficult for a colleague. Continuous scrutiny of finances is essential, and that is the one area on which there is a slight weakness in the report.

Mr Francie Molloy: I wish to speak about this word that has been raised once again today — permanent. I want to draw attention to Mr McCartney’s assertion that sovereignty remains permanently at Westminster. He will be aware that in the Good Friday Agreement there is provision for a referendum the outcome of which would decide the future constitutional position of this country. It is up to the people of Ireland alone, and without outside impediment, to decide upon the future relationships and independence of the people of Ireland. Sovereignty is no longer permanently based at Westminster — that all changed as a result of the agreement reached in Belfast on Good Friday.
Mr Maginness made the point that the notion of the sovereignty of Westminster is outdated, and I agree that it is, and that is a good reason for not including the issue in this document. MrMaginness will know, as he is a lawyer, that should we include sovereignty as an issue in this document, reference will be made in the future to the fact that we put it there. This is the basis of Sinn Fein’s objection.
Not only is sovereignty an outdated issue but it must be borne in mind that sovereignty no longer rests totally with Westminster. Sovereignty is now shared with Dublin with the cross-community support of the Assembly.
Unionists are confused and have been for some time. They have no confidence in themselves and want to rely completely on Westminster to oversee and to look after them. They have no confidence in making decisions here and standing over them as they have done in the past.
MrWilson referred to the issue of scrutiny. We have learnt from the past — prior to 1968 there was no scrutiny of the old Stormont. We have to ensure that there is scrutiny in order to help prevent the danger of slipping back into the old Stormont and the bad old days that we all remember — fifty years of Unionist misrule in this very Chamber.
We Nationalists also remember that Westminster did not do its job — it did not scrutinise properly — and so Sinn Fein wants to ensure that Dublin has a role in scrutinising the Assembly and making sure that it operates as set out in the Good Friday Agreement. Also, we see the European Community having scrutiny — through human-rights legislation — to ensure there is no discrimination against the Nationalist people in the way there was before.
Unionists should not delude themselves any longer that sovereignty from Westminster is permanent. Once Scotland gets independence, once Wales goes for independence and once England returns to its pre-colonial position, as it will, we know exactly what we are going to be faced with — the break-up of the Union.
The Union is no longer safe, and that will become quite clear with the advent of devolution. Unionists should catch themselves on and come to the Assembly with confidence in their own arguments. If they have not got confidence, they should debate matters outside in order to build confidence. Let them come here and ensure that devolution will see the break up of the Union as we presently know it. We will see this come about within the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, and Sinn Fein is here to debate with them.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I thank the Member for giving way. Much has been said and a very esoteric debate has taken place about the issue of sovereignty. Much profound wisdom has been extolled but, at the end of the day, does the Assembly Member recognise that we are voting on the recommendations of the report rather than debating the wording of the paragraphs and inscriptions. Under the heading ‘The Key Principles’ the Committee recommends that
"Following devolution, transferred matters ought to become essentially the preserve of the Northern Ireland Assembly."
Will the Member confirm that that recommendation is acceptable to him?

Mr Francie Molloy: I thank Mr McGrady for his intervention. Sinn Fein’s point is that this is not an agreed document. We are asking that it be referred back to enable us to come to total agreement. We should go back to the drawing board to see if we can produce a document which can be agreed by all Members.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Does the motion not say that we approved the report in its entirety, not just its recommendations?

Lord Alderdice: It is the report.

Mr Francie Molloy: I again return to MrMcGrady’s point. Many changes have been made to the report, and the wording of the document will come back to haunt us. That is why it is important that we agree its wording before forwarding it as an agreed report, which it is presently not.

Lord Alderdice: The Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee indicated that he had written to me on a number of matters which the Committee discussed but viewed as outside its remit. As requested by the Committee, through its Chairman, I have agreed to take appropriate steps to try to ensure that these matters are properly dealt with by the Assembly through its procedures.

Mr Alan McFarland: All those Members who harbour a secret desire to be a Committee Chairman when the Assembly gets running, will have had a flavour today of what lies ahead of them.
I thank Members for their good wishes and, in particular, for the unaccustomed pat on the back from MrMcCartney, and his good grace on this occasion. I am not used to these things, as Members will appreciate.
A couple of matters need clarification, and they are concerned with the way in which the Committee operated. For example, MrMcCrea raised the question of draft changing. I would argue that this is what committees are about. A committee deliberates on different drafts brought before it, makes a decision and changes wording. That is fair and valid. To portray it as removing things that were awkward is not a fair reflection of what happened.
The second matter is the question, which MrsNelis raised, of things changing. The Committee had a number of meetings, and it was taking a lot of time because there were 18 members and many wished to speak. We were not progressing towards our deadline as fast as we wished and, therefore, it was decided that I, as Chairman, would hold a series of bilaterals to try to encapsulate the essentials of the report. This meant that at our last meeting we would only have to deal with those areas requiring a final decision.
As a result of these bilateral meetings, a sentence was included — and it has been raised today — at the end of paragraph 9. In my view, this was valid because the parties had raised it. It was equally valid for Sinn Fein or, indeed, any other party, to object to this. We had a very lengthy debate on it on Friday week ago. We tried all sorts of methods to come to an agreed form of wording, and in the end we could not do that. It had to go to a vote, which was carried. Sinn Fein abstained, and the SDLP felt that it could not support the report. I think, in its defence, that it did not object to the wording, but sought an agreed wording.
My recollection, which is reflected in the minutes, is that I sought confirmation that the Committee wished the report to go forward as an agreed report, with the caveat in paragraph 9 that the decision had gone to a vote. As I recall, all the members there said "Yes". There was no dissension or question of revisiting the matter. It would bode ill for the Assembly’s Committee system in the future to keep going back to things when there is disagreement with words here and there. If Members want to go through Committee work word by word, it will mean several years of work.
The secret of operating a good Committee is that the Clerk and the Chairman do all the hard work and that the members have it presented and make the decisions. In our Clerk’s defence, I do not think he would agree with Mr McCartney that no hard work was done.
With my Committee hat off momentarily — I hope that this will not have the effect that MrAdams’s saying "Well done, David" had on my party — I would like to commend in particular MrSWilson for shedding the light of reason amidst the Democratic Unionist Party.
I commend this magnificent report to the Assembly.

Lord Alderdice: I hesitate to bring this to the attention of the House again, but could I request that those Members in possession of incontinent pagers and telephones please try to do something to keep them in order. It is most off-putting, particularly when Members are speaking, and discourteous. I would ask you to leave them outside, put them on vibrate mode or put them off, but please do not disturb the Assembly.

Mr Robert McCartney: On a point of order, Mr Presiding Officer. May I suggest that it is not put in the form of a request but that there is a positive ruling that these telephones are not permitted inside the Chamber, otherwise you are always going to be prone to some Member forgetting to turn it off or deliberating leaving it on. They should not be allowed inside the Chamber or, indeed, inside the working Committee rooms.

Lord Alderdice: Actually, Mr McCartney, there is already a ruling in that regard. It makes it very clear that they are not to have them in here switched on. The difficulty is that when Members transgress they usually, when it is drawn to their attention by the sounding of their device, quickly leave the Chamber, so I am not even in the position to send them out.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: Mr Presiding Officer, on a point of order. Would it be possible for you to impose a small fine on those who offend? I suggest £10, which could go towards the medical students upstairs.

Lord Alderdice: I am grateful to a fellow County Antrim man for coming up with what one might expect from someone from that part of the world. This is really a matter for the Standing Orders Committee, but if intrusion persists I will have to take some measures. If fines are imposed I shall have to decide where the money should go.
No petition of concern having being tabled under Initial Standing Order 12.5, the decision of the Assembly will be judged under Standing Order 12(1) — that is to say by simple majority.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Assembly approves the report prepared by the Ad Hoc Committee on the Procedural Consequences of Devolution and agrees to forward it to the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons.
The sitting was suspended at 12.40 pm.
On resuming —

Comprehensive Spending Review

Lord Alderdice: Members will have received a paper on the comprehensive spending review and will have had an opportunity to peruse it. After the Minister presents his proposals arising from the review to the House, Members will have an opportunity to put questions to him. Members should restrict their questions to the subject matter of the presentation. They will only be able to ask one question, and that should be as brief as possible. Members should not make speeches or extensive statements — we want to give as many Members as possible the opportunity to put questions to the Minister.

Paul Murphy: Mr Initial Presiding Officer, Members of the Assembly and friends, I would like, first of all, to say that if I am seen to take out from beneath this podium a glass containing a transparent liquid, it should not be assumed that it contains gin and tonic, as it might do for the Chancellor of the Exchequer — it contains Northern Irish water. By the end of this afternoon’s session, I may need refreshment of another kind!
I am delighted to have the opportunity to talk to you this afternoon about the comprehensive spending review, and about what will eventually be the Assembly’s own budget. It is a measure of the distance we have travelled that the Assembly was no more than an idea when the comprehensive spending review was launched last year. Today, the Assembly is a reality, and, next year, it will have responsibility for much of the expenditure which we will be discussing this afternoon. As the elected representatives of all the men and women— and children — of Northern Ireland, Members of the Assembly will be responsible for, perhaps, some £8billion.
As many Members will recall, I had the responsibility of chairing the final negotiations which led to strand one of the Agreement — namely, the arrangements for the establishment of the Assembly. So it is a great personal pleasure for me to be addressing the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, and I wish them all well in their future deliberations. There will, of course, next year, be elected Assemblies for Scotland and for my own country, Wales, and I hope also, eventually, for the English regions. This great adventure in democracy, where people are represented by those who live amongst them, represents a tremendous advance.
Perhaps one of the most significant issues with which the Assembly will have to deal in the coming years is the question of expenditure. That budget of £8 billion represents a huge responsibility for the Assembly, just as it currently represents a huge responsibility for the Secretary of State and myself and our Ministerial colleagues. The significance of that cannot be overstated.
Aneurin Bevan, a fellow countryman and a great hero of mine, said, this applies to all political philosophies and certainly to government, that the language of socialism — or, one could say, the language of government — is the language of priorities. The comprehensive spending review, an exercise that was started by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, represents, not just in Northern Ireland but in the country as a whole, the priorities that the Government should have. That is precisely what will exercise your minds and attentions in the years ahead.
What priorities, as elected representatives, should you have? It is important to recognise that when people take the trouble to put a cross against your name, or, in the case of the Assembly, a number against your name, they are supporting you as an individual or as a party, and so there is a heavy responsibility on us to represent them to the best of our ability. The £8 billion which you will have to control when the Assembly is fully established will touch upon all aspects of life in NorthernIreland — health, education, local government, the environment and roads, among other things.
As a result of the comprehensive spending review in the country as a whole, the Secretary of State asked the people of Northern Ireland through their political parties, voluntary organisations, the trade union movement, through businesses and the local authorities what priorities they felt should be dealt with in the coming years. So the consultation on the comprehensive spending review by no means began in the Assembly, but it will end here because the Assembly to which you all belong, has been asked what those priorities might be.
The Government produced a paper, which most of you received in Brussels last week, in which details of their spending proposals are set out. As I said, the comprehensive spending review was the most detailed public examination ever undertaken in the UnitedKingdom, and Northern Ireland has participated in that. The Secretary of State, my other ministerial colleagues and I have reached a view on how best to allocate the available resources.
In reaching this view, we have also taken into account the funding made available by the Chancellor’s economic initiative which was announced in May, the resources that we received from the New Deal, from the Welfare to Work programme and money from Europe, in particular the European peace and reconciliation programmes. There are additional resources earmarked for specific purposes including assisting the unemployed and helping to cement the process of reconciliation.
Government is about priorities, and we have concluded that in NorthernIreland the priorities that we were elected on are essentially no different from the priorities on the mainland — with the exception of the money spent on security, about which I will say something later — which are health and education.
We have come to the conclusion that what matters to people is the quality of life, in particular, how their children are educated, the quality of that education, together with the universality, the significance, the great ability of the Health Service to be able to deal with people’s health from the cradle to the grave. That is of vital significance to every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland.
That, if you have examined the papers in detail, illustrates where our priorities lie. You will see that the greatest increases by way of cash, or indeed by way of percentage, are in the health programme, specifically geared to reducing the waiting lists and in schools, specifically geared to lowering class sizes.
Those, coupled with the very significant and important aspect of ensuring that the security of people in Northern Ireland is dealt with properly, lie at the basis of those priorities. That does not mean that the services which are not covered by the health and education budgets are insignificant. Of course, they are not.
When I go round — as I have had the opportunity to do, though less so than my colleagues — and talk to people of all political persuasions in local authorities and elsewhere, they tell me that they also have important local priorities, whether roads, the environment, economic development, or whatever. We have chosen to concentrate on schools and hospitals in allocating the additional money.
There is a difficult question to answer — one which you will be charged with, as, indeed, will the local authorities — and that is "How do you pitch your rate?" There is, unique to Northern Ireland, a regional rate. The rating system has been abolished in Great Britain and replaced by the council tax although there is still a business rate there. You, of course, as an Assembly, when you are up and running, will be in a position to strike that rate in order to raise money to spend upon services for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland.
We have assumed, as you will have read in the comprehensive spending review, a specific increase of 8% in the domestic regional rate, which we want to gear towards the huge and difficult problem that all of us jointly face, specifically in water and sewerage. You might think that that is a fairly unglamorous subject to discuss.
This morning my ministerial colleague LordDubs introduced his consultation paper on the future of the water and sewerage service. The sewerage system in Northern Ireland needs enormous capital, and one way of overcoming that problem without having to eat into your expenditure on other services is to ensure that the rate is struck at an appropriate level to deal with this particular problem.
The choice, ultimately, is yours. You may decide to increase the rate even more if you want to bring in more money to spend on services which you believe are significant or you may decide to reduce it. If you do reduce it, because there is a ceiling on the amount of money that we are allowed under the block, you will have to find money from elsewhere. However, at the moment we are assuming an increase of 8% on the domestic regional rate and 5·5% on non-domestic rate.
May I briefly touch upon one or two of the issues that I dealt with. When we discuss these matters later, we can go into more detail.
The people of Northern Ireland are entitled to the very best health service that we can afford. The Health Service was born a few miles away from where I live and represent. It is probably one of the dearest things to me as a politician and, I am sure, to you as well. It affects the lives of everybody in Northern Ireland.
Public representatives and people throughout Northern Ireland have indicated that they do not want to see a reduction in the quality of the service offered by the Health Service. You will see, in the figures that you have been presented with, an increase in the amount planned to be spent on the Health Service. That amount does not include the £6million plus which, last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to Northern Ireland to deal with the problems of community care.
This is a major commitment to this key service. It will allow hospital waiting lists to be reduced below the level inherited from the last Government. There is an extra £74 million for community-care packages and another £30million for childcare to safeguard the well-being of children at risk.
We have completed an exhaustive consultation on the future organisation of the Health Service, and it will fall to you to shape the Service for the health and the social-care challenges of the future. There may be difficult decisions to take, but that is what government is about and what representation is. Nevertheless, health is right up at the top of the agenda, as is education. It is one of my Government’s priorities and one of the priorities of those who represent the people of Northern Ireland. These extra resources will improve standards in schools, reduce class sizes, and, very significantly, expand pre-school education which is of vital importance in the mental and educational development of very young children, and can have a significant impact on their educational future.
We have proposed additions for further education, higher education, life-long learning and the Springvale initiative. We have given extra cash for arts, museums, youth and sport and the Odyssey Millennium project.
If we have priorities, other things will not be on the same level. The package contains some reductions on the economic development side. I hasten to add that if this package is approved, £165 million will be spent in that area next year, but it has to be viewed in the context of other things: the Chancellor’s initiative, which is vital to the economic development of Northern Ireland, and the welfare-to-work programme, which is a very significant programme in terms of improving the training opportunities for young — and not so young — people. It all adds up to a significant economic development package for the people of Northern Ireland. There is still much to be done, but this is of great significance to the people here and to Members.
Over the next three years we shall put an extra £84 million into the water and sewerage infrastructure to help to address European Union directives on water qualities.
There will also be some reduction in housing expenditure so that additional resources can be released for schools and hospitals. We expect the Housing Association Movement to act in partnership with the Government to bring greater amounts of private finance here. Similarly, a number of capital receipts have come in on housing, and that has helped.
We recognise that the agricultural industry has experienced major difficulties in recent times. Significant additions to the agricultural programme have been proposed to respond to pressures on animal health, food safety, food processing, and marketing — as promised by the Prime Minister earlier this year — as well as to improve the services provided by the agricultural colleges and increase the protection against flooding. It was evident in Brussels last week how important agriculture is to Northern Ireland’s economy — the biggest single industry — and it is very important that we bend our minds to ensure that, as we go into the next century, as much as possible is done to improve and facilitate the agricultural industry here. The figures support that.
Of considerable interest to all Members is the expenditure relating to the Assembly. Here, in Cardiff and in Edinburgh, the two Assemblies and the Parliament must have money to exist. Provision has been made for various costs relating to the Assembly, the Office of the Executive, the North/South Ministerial Council and other costs associated with the Belfast Agreement.
They are not insignificant sums. This year we expect to have to find about £9.5million for the Assembly alone, and thereafter approximately £14 million to £15 million each year. Those sums will have to be found from the fixed totals in the NorthernIreland block in the same way as for Wales and Scotland.
The targeting social need and policy appraisal and fair treatment schemes are relevant to public spending allocations. Earlier this year the Government relaunched the TSNinitiative as new TSN — New Labour, New TSN — with a particular focus on the needs of the unemployed. A review of TSN in each Department is currently being carried out by external consultants. In putting together the spending proposals, we have taken account of the potential targeting social need and PAFT implications. Our policies on higher education and on Springvale, Odyssey and many other areas, such as welfare to work, strongly support TSN.
In the consultation paper we have tried to strike a balance between providing sufficient detail for meaningful consultations and a not too voluminous document. The question is whether the Assembly agrees with the overall shape of the priorities that we have provisionally decided. The overall spending totals are fixed, so any suggestions for changes have to identify gainers or losers. This is an unprecedented consultation on spending plans. It represents the Assembly’s first opportunity to consider public spending allocations to programmes. It gives the Assembly an indication of what it will face in the future.
It will be for the Assembly to decide how to respond to what I have said. It may decide that the debate is sufficient, or Members may write to me individually or collectively. We need to complete the process in the next couple of weeks to begin finalising that programme.
I thank the Assembly for the opportunity to deal with the huge problems of prioritisation. In view of all the problems that NorthernIreland has faced over the years and will face in future, it is a heavy responsibility on me, but it will be a heavier one on Members of the Assembly. That process applies particularly here.
I am not elected by people in NorthernIreland, but Members will be accountable to the electorate here for their decisions. That is what democracy is about. Spending priorities are the core of representing people in a democratic society. I am privileged and proud to have had the opportunity to see democracy in NorthernIreland for the first time in many years.

Lord Alderdice: Many Members want to ask questions. I repeat that each will have one opportunity. There must be no extensive statements, and it will not be appropriate to intervene when the Minister is replying. Questions will be taken in batches of six. I shall allow as many as possible.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: My question is about the regional rate. The Minister mentioned an 8 per cent increase. That is about £83 million extra to be paid to be paid by ratepayers from a base level of £200 million.
That is an astronomical increase for a particular phase of the water and sewerage system. However, I accept that the expenditure is necessary. Given that we are moving towards resource accounting — costs are allocated over the useful life of an asset — does the Minister think it is fair to charge ratepayers for something which will only be of benefit many years hence? Could we not be more imaginative?

Mr Eddie McGrady: I welcome the Minister as the first guest to address the Assembly. Like all Members, I welcome the additional finance for health and education.
Let me draw the Minister’s attention to the Chancellor’s economic package, announced last May. This was understood to be additional to existing resources, yet in paragraph 8 and in other places he says that there is ring-fencing for £130 million. Can he confirm that up to £100million of this so-called additional money will come from the privatisation of the Belfast harbour — that, as it were, the family silver is being sold off? Will the Assembly be able to express a view on this privatisation? I understand that it is to be rushed through before Christmas. That is a total disgrace.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I congratulate the Minister on his presentation.
Does he know how welcome the Chancellor’s initiative and the £12·5million of ring-fenced money for the A5 road are? Is he aware that, prior to that announcement, a backlog of work to the tune of £55million had built up in the western region? Recently, in the House of Lords, the Duke of Abercorn highlighted the sentiments of everyone in West Tyrone when he pointed out that the region has no ports, harbours or airports. Its lifeline is the A5 — the Londonderry-Ballygawley road — which has suffered from a massive £35million underspend.
Will the Minister assure the Assembly that the West will no longer suffer financial hardship, that there will be equality of treatment and that the lifeline for West Tyrone will be brought up to the standards necessary for modern commercial, tourist and agricultural activity?

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirligh.
Sinn Fein welcomes the opportunity to discuss the comprehensive spending review with MrMurphy. We have a number of concerns that will be raised in the course of the debate.
The entire document is extremely vague because of its failure to identify current and capital account expenditure. This is especially so in relation to the Law and Order budget which will remain largely unchanged over the next three years. Where is the indication of the clear shift from conflict-related expenditure towards more socially useful expenditure in the light of the different political situation? I ask the Minister to produce for the Assembly a public-expenditure statement that sets out capital and current account expenditure, and includes estimates of tax revenue from all sources.
Will the Minister confirm that, contrary to media reports, the prison at Long Kesh is to be refurbished, with building work due to start in the next two to three weeks? Will he inform the Assembly about the outcome of the tendering competition for that work? Go raibh maith agat.

Lord Alderdice: I said that each Member should ask one question only. However, the ingenuity of Members sometimes ensures that there is more than one route to their question. I appeal to Members to restrict themselves to one question each.

Mr Seamus Close: I welcome the Minister to what has been called a consultation exercise. I trust that it will indeed be consultation and not purely a cosmetic exercise.
I am perturbed at the proposal to increase the regional rate by 8%. Does the Minister agree that we all have a duty to try to achieve open and accountable government, and that any fiscal measures that are used to provide for an increase in public expenditure should be seen by the electorate to be open and transparent?
I have been involved in local government for 25 years, and I can tell the House that every local authority in Northern Ireland abhors the regional rate. It is a totally nebulous tax, based on assumption, and it is impossible to understand how it is calculated. It is disgraceful to use it as the vehicle for increasing public expenditure and to restrict this House in such a way. If we are to have open and accountable government, it would be much more satisfactory to have tax-varying or tax-raising powers that are also open and accountable to the electorate.
The Minister said that when he returned home he did not want anyone ringing him up. We will still be here and accountable to the people, and they will wish to know how their money is being spent.

Lord Alderdice: Please bring your remarks to a close.

Mr Seamus Close: The water and sewerage systems are in their present state because of the neglect of previous Governments. A more accountable measure should be used to raise the necessary funding.

Mr Patrick Roche: I welcome the increase in expenditure on education. How will that money be used to address problems in education?
Northern Ireland has record achievements in GCSE and A-level examinations, but, at the other end of the spectrum, significant numbers of people leave education without any qualifications. That means that those people were either insufficiently intelligent or that the schools they attended failed totally in their responsibilities.
Can Members be assured that some of this increased expenditure on education will be used to address that problem?
No matter how the education system develops, we need to retain the excellence of our grammar schools. There is a problem at tertiary level.

Lord Alderdice: Please bring your questions to a conclusion.

Mr Patrick Roche: Northern Ireland has two reasonably performing universities, but they do not have a high status either in the league table of universities or internationally. Therefore they have not attracted the top Northern Ireland students, and that has led to a significant brain drain over the past 30 years. I hope that the increase in expenditure will be directed towards those problems.

Paul Murphy: I am grateful for all the comments that have been made. I will make one or two general points about some of the questions that have been asked. I have noted those Members who asked questions involving constituency details or more technical aspects. I will write to them individually in more detail. Although I am the Minister responsible for finance, I am not the Minister responsible for education and health et cetera. There are policies about which Members need further information and they may rest assured that they will get information back from the Government on those issues.
However, I will do my best on the questions that have been raised.
I will take MrNesbitt’s question with Mr Close’s because they both refer to the regional rate and to the eight per cent increase to which I referred. Let me repeat that this increase is, as the Government suggest the best compromise we can have to get proper spending on those matters to which I referred – water and sewerage. It is not the only way, however. You cannot, for example, choose to spend less on something else and then spend it on water and sewerage.
You can, of course, choose to spend the rate increase on something else. But no one wants to pay rates. For 10 years I had to get up in my local authority chamber in Torfaen, South Wales, as Chairman of the Finance Committee and present a budget. I always ended by saying that as a consequence of the budget, rates would never decrease. The rates were increased to pay for this and for that.
But it is the second point that is significant. If you tell people that rates are to be used to improve the infrastructure, promote jobs and industry and enhance the quality of their lives, they understand, but they will still not want to pay.
MrNesbitt asked if there should be spending now on water and sewerage as the results of such spending will only be seen much later. Capital spending is about the future. We must think of that future. The problem that we are facing, after so many years of neglect, is that the water and sewerage system needs special attention. It is, in many ways, the least glamorous, the least political thing, that you can think about. But it is vital to the infrastructure of society.
Mr Close was saying that the method of taxation which the Government have chosen is flawed. In a sense I agree. The rating system is a flawed system. There are all sorts of difficulties attached to it. The actual amount, however, that is paid by people in Northern Ireland compared to the amount the people in GreatBritain pay by way of local taxation is less. It is important that if you have a regional rate, you should determine its value.
In Wales there would be no such rate. There is no income possibility for the Welsh Assembly. In Scotland there will be a tax-varying power. I am not giving an opinion on whether the Assembly should have a tax-raising power. It was not part of the Agreement and in discussions afterwards, there was no enthusiasm for such a power. Thus there is none.
There is the regional rate — the only method by which the Assembly has an opportunity to raise income. Indeed, were the Assembly to be given the opportunity to raise funds by local income tax — some would regard that as fairer; others would have doubts — such a tax would be imposed in any event, and probably for the same purpose, namely the water and sewerage systems.
It is a flawed systems method, but Members will have to decide, if they do not want to put that rate up, where they will take the money from, if the issue of the water and sewerage system is to be addressed.
On Mr Nesbitt’s point about accounting, Government accounting, at present, means that the capital has to be scored up front, and the necessary expenditure has to be funded. He asked about consultation. Lord Dubs will consult the Assembly on the future of water and sewerage facilities in Northern Ireland.
Mr McGrady referred to the Chancellor’s economic package and to the fact that it is additional. He was worried about the sale of Belfast harbour. I can confirm, and the Chancellor has also made it clear, that part of this package depends upon the results of the sale of Belfast harbour.
It is unique for the Chancellor to retain the receipts from such a sale; normally such receipts go into a pool and are swallowed up by the budgetary process in Whitehall. That is not the case on this occasion. The receipts are to be ring-fenced and used in Northern Ireland for the infrastructure and the other works referred to. However, it is not true that the harbour will be privatised by December, and it is true that Lord Dubs will consult the Assembly for its views on such a course of action.
Mr Gibson referred to the problems of the west and the difficulties with transport. He welcomed the A5 improvements, but indicated, like many people who represent Tyrone and the west of Northern Ireland, that there is much more to be done. He also indicated that the lifeline of that part of the province depends very much upon a proper road-transport system. He, and others, made that point to me when I visited Omagh Council in the summer, and I understand its significance. I am sure that when the Assembly decides upon packages for transport and roads, that point will be borne in mind. Some of the Chancellor’s package will be going to those areas.
Ms O’Hagan referred to a number of issues, some of which I will write to her about, but I will explain the Northern Ireland Office budget in relation to law and order. One of the reasons why that budget has not been reduced in the coming year is that compensation for Omagh and other places has to be paid for out of it.
We also do not know what the outcome of the Patten Commission will be regarding the restructuring of the police force. We do not know what the Criminal Justice Commission will ask us to do — time will tell. I will just make two points.
First, if the security situation in Northern Ireland improves month by month and year by year, inevitably it could be argued that there will be savings. However, Members will know as well as I do that such savings are most likely to occur in manpower. Redundancy payments and payments related to early retirement will have to be paid for, so it is not so simple. Secondly, the Northern Ireland budget and the budget that the Assembly will eventually deal with, which combined come to some £9 billion, will, after devolution, be separated.
The Assembly will not, for example, have to pay for compensation. That will fall upon the Northern Ireland Office budget. It will not come out of the budget for housing or education or whatever. Where there will have to be some very difficult negotiations will be with the Treasury, and with the Government centrally, in London on where the division of an overall amount would be made, between the Northern Ireland block on the one hand and the Assembly block on the other.
But Northern Ireland will not be on its own in that because the Welsh and the Scottish will have to undergo a similar negotiation — I was going to call it a battle — as well. Of course, the Northern Ireland budget, by virtue of the security input, is much higher than the budget in Wales and, to a lesser extent, in Scotland.
Mr Roche raised the important question of standards in schools and, of course, it is a huge budget. I dealt with the education brief as a shadow Minister, and for the six months or so that I held that brief, I was deeply impressed by the quality and standards of education in Northern Ireland. At the same time I was unimpressed by the fact that there is clearly more work to be done in many schools in Northern Ireland, whether it be in terms of the school buildings or the equipment they need, the computers that have to go in, and we have already tackled this to a certain extent, the class-size issue. As a former teacher myself, I can say that what is most significant and leads to success in the classroom is the number of children in it: the bigger the class, the less chance a child has. That may be a truism, but it has been forgotten for a long time, and that is why, in my view, the most significant thing that can be done to improve a child’s education is to ensure that the class size is smaller.
The future of grammar schools and the education system itself is something that you are going to have to debate in the months and years ahead. We have put into the budget a very large amount of money for the programme to support the schools in areas of social need, for training for primary teachers and for training for principals of schools, which is very important — when I was young, principals were not trained to manage. We were trained to teach; that is what attracted us in the first place. Now they have to do both, and sometimes no teaching at all. That is a mistake; all principals should teach now and again, as all head teachers should, just to make sure that they understand what is going on. It is very important that principals of schools get the opportunity for such training.
In addition to that, we are looking at a strategy for promoting good behaviour in schools, a development planning process and a host of other things as well. The idea behind all of this is to improve standards in schools so that no matter where your home is, no matter how poor or deprived you may be, the opportunity you get as a young boy or girl is not squandered because of the system and you can develop your potential. That is why everybody, no matter what community or place he comes from in Northern Ireland, believes in the value of education.

Rev Robert Coulter: Does the Minister’s reference to future security spending levels fully take into account the levels of inflation that have been estimated and the undertakings given by the Prime Minister with regard to potential severance payments for members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Is there likely to be up to a £4 million underfunding for the most recent pay award and another cut of around £24 million in current spending at a time when 20,000 troops will, if the present reduction in violence is maintained, be withdrawn?
Would it not be common sense to ensure that the levels of operational policing are enhanced? Would the Minister confirm that the reality is that there is a £28 million reduction in funding?

Mr Tommy Gallagher: The allocation for home-school transport arrangements does not allow for the present arrangements to continue beyond the end of the next school year. Thereafter, the intention is to charge pupils over 16 for transport to school.
Three years ago the Department of Education proposed a similar initiative which would have severely penalised pupils in rural areas. In my own constituency, some of the pupils would have been required to pay £700 for transport to school. Tampering with school transport arrangements invariably hits pupils in rural areas hardest and is unlikely to achieve worthwhile savings, as some research undertaken in the west of the province shows. Will the Minister withdraw this particular suggestion?
Furthermore, in relation to higher education and the allocation of an extra 2,000 places may I point out that we have to see this in the context of the current year where students have to pay a £1,000 tuition fee and where maintenance grants have been cut in half. From next year maintenance grants will be replaced by student loans. Students face the prospect of leaving university with a millstone of debt around their necks. It is very discouraging for young people from poorer backgrounds who might progress into third-level education. Is the Minister aware of the concerns that many Members have about future higher education places being available and filled, not on merit, but on the ability of people from privileged families to pay for them?

Mr Jim Shannon: My question is in relation to the Water and Sewerage Service. When in opposition, the Labour Party opposed privatization of national institutions. Will the Minister confirm that the current Government now supports the privatization of the Water Service? As I understand it, a paper is being prepared by Westminster civil servants at this very moment.Could it be that the proposed water charges of £35 to £70 per household, is a pay-off for the fat cats? How can he justify that increase? Furthermore, how does the Minister reconcile the double standards that the Labour Party has so very clearly shown?

Mr Alex Maskey: Minister, in the spending review you have referred to four key supporting aims and it seems to me that while they are all very worthwhile, they tend to be vague and there is not as much emphasis on targeting social needs, although you made mention of it earlier.
What concerns me is how this can be worked out in practice. Take my own constituency, West Belfast, for example. If it were to be designated a health action zone, then extra resources will be required for the Health Service. Introduction of the Children Order will put greater stresses on the criminal justice system in the area. It may even lead to the closure of one of the homes in the area. Extra resources would, therefore, also be needed in the social services budget.
May I point out that your colleague endorsed, just a couple of days ago, the need in West Belfast. You need to take account of this need in the four key aims and I would like to know how you actually measure social need in a constituency like West Belfast.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: My question is in relation to a lack of clarity surrounding cuts in community development. Minister, you mentioned the Springvale and Odyssey projects. This paper goes on to say there is scope for adjustment to existing urban regeneration community development baselines to help support higher priority projects elsewhere. I think that nowhere could you say that either Odyssey or Springvale has been community led. One is an education programme and the other is a mixture of leisure and other areas. Particularly in relation to the Odyssey project, it could not be said that it is supported from a community development point of view, by most people in east Belfast.
The Agreement says
"The participants particularly recognise that young people from areas affected by the troubles face particular difficulties and will support the development of special community-based initiatives based on international best practice."
It concerns me that when we are trying to move forward in the spirit of the Agreement that the Government are now suggesting that we should put our money into projects which are nothing other than Government flagships. Will you clarify and give us an assurance that the Odyssey and Springvale projects will not drain money away from community development projects?

Ms Jane Morrice: We welcome the priorities which the Minister has set for health and education, and particularly for pre-school education. I, like Mr Hutchinson of the PUP, am concerned about the ambiguity over whether certain areas of expenditure will be cut in order to accommodate these priorities.
We want to focus on training, which the Minister mentioned. He said that existing programmes could be "reconfigured" to emphasise the new priority given to skills enhancement. I would like to know what is meant by this. In particular, we would like to know whether the Action for Community Employment (ACE) programme, which Northern Ireland people have a great attachment to, will be totally swallowed up by the new deal or whether it can be properly resurrected as a fine example of an existing training programme?
I also seek clarification on a second point, which Members will appreciate from their visit to Brussels. The Minister had budgeted for the peace and reconciliation programme to run beyond the year 2000 into 2001 and 2002. While Members are all lobbying to try to keep it, we cannot understand why the Minister has budgeted for it up until 2002 when we understood that it was to end in the year 2000.

Paul Murphy: Mr Coulter raised the issue of inflation and the question of the Northern Ireland Police Authority’s grant for law and order over the next few years. It is currently being held at broadly the same level as that for this financial year. That means, as the Member knows, that the Police Authority and the RUC will have to make some efficiency savings to cover police pay. But, generally speaking, there is no great difference between the grant now and the grant for the year ahead.
I did say, and I repeat, that we do not know what the Police Commission will recommend. We do not know what the security situation will be like in the coming years. Suffice it to say that current policing levels in no way put at risk the security of people in Northern Ireland. But, of course, we await with interest the Commission’s recommendations.
Mr Gallagher referred to two things: the question of home-school transport charging and higher education. On the first point, he rightly refers to the fact there is to be no change next year, which is the first of a three year programme. It is in the second and third years that the decision will have to be taken. I fully accept his point about rural areas, but ultimately it will be for the Assembly to determine how high a priority that is in education as a whole. Across the water in England, Scotland and Wales, there are varying methods of school-transport support, according to local circumstances. The Assembly may feel, for example, that, particularly in rural areas, some special help should be given because of size. That is just a suggestion for the second and third years, but, ultimately, that will be for the Assembly to decide.
In relation to the point about higher education, I sympathise entirely. I was the first member of my family, on either side, who went to university. I understand the significance of being able to ensure that you do not have to worry about the financial consequences of going to higher and tertiary education. I do not think that it is going to be as bad a picture as MrGallagher painted. For example, it is estimated that only 25% of students will pay the £1000 tuition fee. Some 35% will pay less than that, and 40% will pay nothing at all.
We also have to bear in mind what we mean by post 16-17 education. Many people did not benefit from advanced further education. We concentrated so heavily on those taking degree courses that people in advanced education, which was not at degree level, lost out. We need to ensure that there is fairness and equity, so that as many as possible can benefit from it.
Mr Shannon referred to the privatisation of the water and sewerage services. There will be full consultation with my colleague, Lord Dubs, and the use of private finance in public-private partnerships is something which the Government certainly believe is the right way to go about such matters, particularly where major infrastructure is concerned. There is nothing wrong with that.
There is, of course, the option of complete privatization — and that is one of the options open — but we have made no decision on it. It is very much a matter for consultation before we decide what to do.
Mr Maskey referred to targeting social need and policy appraisal and fair treatment. Of course those schemes are vital — very significant indeed. In terms of the measurement to which he referred, there are technical means of measuring relative needs. We can, for example, use indicators such as unemployment — and these are used in targeting social need assessments, as he knows.
I think he is concerned that these schemes will, in some way or other, get lost in the whole budgetary exercise. I can assure him that that is not the case. It is very much in the mind of the Government — and I am sure it will be in the mind of the Assembly — that Targeting Social Need and Policy Appraisal and Fair Treatment be kept very much to the fore.
Mr Hutchinson referred to cuts in community development. It is not only the question of Odyssey or Springvale, to which I referred, but also of improving, as I hope we are, education, schools, areas of social need or the health of people in more deprived communities. If we look at the welfare to work situation we can see that all these things can be looked at by way of helping people in areas which need the help particularly because of the social difficulties they face. There are many areas, including his own, in Northern Ireland, which we need to look at. I will, of course, write to him in detail regarding some of those matters, but we also have to bear in mind the European programmes.
I refer to Ms Morrice’s point about the peace and reconciliation programme. That will eventually come to an end — of course it will. As far as that problem is concerned, part of our visit last week was to see what can replace the current European programmes to ensure that we get the best possible deal.
I do not want to see any programme swallowed up by the new deal, as the Member put it, but it is very important to understand the enormous help that has come through the welfare to work programme, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced. We really do need to try to understand the whole picture in training terms. My experience over the years is that it is a very complicated picture and that sometimes people can slip through the net on training. It is important to look at the whole situation as far as training is concerned — including welfare to work. I understand Members’ concerns and will ensure that they are met as best as possible.

Mr Roy Beggs: I would like to press further on the issue of the privatisation of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners. Would the Minister agree that the hundreds of acres of prime redevelopment land, currently controlled by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, is largely unrelated to port activity, has the potential of handing exorbitant profits to property speculation and may lead to uncontrolled development which would exacerbate the socially unacceptable doughnut effect within the City of Belfast?
Furthermore, is he aware of the potentially unfair economic advantage that a privatised Belfast Harbour Commission would have over the other ports in Northern Ireland?

Ms Brid Rodgers: My question relates to something that has already been raised — the impact of the reduction of the targeting social need and policy appraisal and fair treatment schemes. I listened to the Minister’s reply but it does occur to me that the welfare to work programme is being managed as part of an inter-departmental budget at UK level and will, therefore, be outside the scope of this consultation and, in a sense, outside the control of the Assembly.
Since this is to outweigh the negative impact of the reduction of the targeting social need and policy appraisal and fair treatment schemes, we could find ourselves being unable to deliver on the commitment to equality which is part of the Agreement. Perhaps the Minister could deal with that.
The decision to treat the Springvale project as a private finance initiative will also place it outside the scope of this consultation.

Rev William McCrea: As the Minister noted, agriculture is Northern Ireland’s largest industry. Almost every sector of that industry is currently in crisis. Farming incomes are falling dramatically, and farmers do not know where to turn. During the recent crisis in the pig farming industry, the French Government introduced a series of measures to support their producers. These included special payments to farmers in difficulty, special arrangements for pig farmers and a package worth 30 million francs to support farming families affected by the crisis. What hope can the Minister offer to this industry in these spending proposals?

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirligh. I welcome the additional funding for education, particularly for schools in the most disadvantaged areas. I would be grateful if the Minister could quantify the additional funding for Irish-medium schools and clarify whether, given that most Irish-medium schools are to be found in disadvantaged areas, that additional funding is in addition to funding for schools in disadvantaged areas.

Mr Sean Neeson: I would like also to raise the matter of the sale of the Port of Belfast. In the Chancellor’s statement, it is stated quite clearly that the Belfast-Newry road, and other new projects, will be partly funded by the proceeds of the transfer of the Port of Belfast from the public sector to a public-private partnership. However, in the Minister’s statement, it is made clear that, if these receipts do not materialise, these projects would only proceed if funding on other Northern Ireland projects were reduced. Where does the truth lie? The people of Northern Ireland did not derive any benefit from the sale by the previous Government of Belfast Airport and Northern Ireland Electricity. The best way to fund these new projects is to use the existing profits from the Port of Belfast, rather than by selling off the family silver.

Mr Robert McCartney: The Minister will, by now, appreciate the distaste with which all parties regard the proposals for the use of the profits from the sale of the Port of Belfast.
Will there be any funding, in addition to the £8 billion block grant, to compensate for Government mis-management of, for example, the crisis in the agriculture industry, as referred to earlier by RevWilliamMcCrea? This crisis, especially in the beef industry, was brought about by the negligence and mismanagement of the previous Government, and is, therefore, not the responsibility of anyone in the Northern Irish beef industry, which had the best system in the United Kingdom for tracing cattle. Yet, in spite of this, the Province suffered disproportionately from the European Union beef ban because of the relative size of the beef industry here.
In relation to the point made by Ms Rodgers, the Welfare to Work programme is a central Government project, but it is taking people from welfare to work — and some of the Welfare to Work programmes are of questionable economic value — while other policies are running into the ground (people who have worked assiduously for generations in the agriculture industry).

Paul Murphy: I am getting the message as far as Belfast Harbour is concerned. There are a couple of detailed points in reference to the issues raised by MrBeggs, Mr McCartney and Mr Neeson. The land bank is clearly an important issue. The Belfast Harbour Commissioners are to bring forward their own scheme which will have to be assessed by the Government to ensure that the land arrangements are properly considered and to ensure competition. Larne, as you know, is already owned by the private sector.
With regard to MrNeeson’s query about the proceeds of the proposed sale, the estimates, because of the commercial difficulties and the commercial significance of it, have to be confidential at this stage. Not all of the Chancellor’s initiative has been funded from the sale of the port. The Chancellor is making substantial funding available from central resources but receipts also make a contribution. As the port is not publicly owned it is not open to the Government to use its profits to augment the Northern Ireland block.
I will appraise LordDubs and the Secretary of State of the views that have been expressed here today, and you will have an opportunity to discuss this matter again in the Assembly.
With regard to TSN and PAFT, overall there is no reduction in funding — quite the opposite. There are large increases in education and health, and Welfare to Work targets the needs of the individual. There is surely no better way of ensuring that TSN objectives are met than by going to the individual concerned. I do accept the significance of TSN and, in particular, new TSN. I have not dealt with this policy personally, but I am informed by my colleagues who have dealt with the policy, that it is very significant in what it can and what it is hoped it will achieve. As far as the budget is concerned, both those areas act as a backdrop to those decisions we have to take on socio-economic matters.
RevWilliamMcCrea referred to how important agriculture is in Northern Ireland and how incomes have been slashed over the months and years gone by. The Government have taken various measures to alleviate these problems, for example, pig producers were assisted through a pig welfare slaughter scheme and compensation was also provided for flagged herds. This assistance totalled nearly £1·2 million.
I am also aware of the difficulties that are faced as a consequence of the fire at the pig production factory in Ballymoney and the significance of that fire. It is important that we consider how best to deal with this problem. If MrMcCrea looks at the budget for the next three years he will note that the CSR provides support for services worth £25 million, for example, in testing and meat inspection. This should instil confidence in the agricultural industry, particularly in dairy products, which is absolutely necessary.
After talking to people in Europe last week it is our view that the Northern Ireland farmers will be recognised for the very important changes that have occurred in the industry in Northern Ireland and how the farmers have dealt with these crises. MrMcCrea will see, if he reads the budget, that these problems are not forgotten. The Government are certainly conscious, as I am sure the Assembly is, of the importance of agriculture to the well-being of the many thousands of people who live and work on the land in Northern Ireland.
Mr Murphy is aware that, under the Agreement, the Government have committed themselves to passing legislation to ensure that Irish-medium education will be available. The viability criteria have been adjusted so that schools can more easily be established where there is demand. He will also be aware that in my constituency Welsh-medium education is flourishing, so I will place no impediment in the way of those who wish their children to be educated through the medium of the Irish language.
I have covered most of the points, but I will write to Members on some of the detail on points which have been raised.

Mrs Joan Carson: With reference to our roads and transport system, the Chancellor’s economic package will provide £87 million — though spending is dependant on receipts from the transfer of the port of Belfast to the private sector. The port of Belfast is vital to the strategic, economic importance of this Province and must not be regarded as a throwaway bargain; I must emphasise that.
The comprehensive spending review allocations will reinforce this package by a further £11 million for roads operation and maintenance. Will the Minister confirm that no long-term provision has been made within this three year programme for essential long-deferred items? I could give him quite a few examples from South Tyrone.

Dr Sean Farren: The Government, in presenting this consultation paper, quite rightly remind us that their overarching aim is to achieve peace, stability and prosperity. In the first sub-paragraph following this, they commit themselves to ensuring the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.
In the light of that, I would like to point out what I see as a serious omission in the Spending Review. With respect to allocations that will arise out of the establishment of the Civic Forum and the North/South Ministerial Council, there is a brief reference to the office of the Executive on the North/South Council. I take the allocations indicated there to refer specifically to the secretarial aspect of the Council, but with respect to the North/South implementation bodies, I think that we could have expected some more information on what might need to be allocated in that area.
My question refers to paragraph 31 and the Trade, Industry and Energy Section. There is to be a reduction of approximately 4% over 3 years with respect to this area. Given the reference to energy in the title of this section, the imminence of reports dealing with the possible extension of the gas supply to the north- west and the possibility of the extension of gas supplies should an interconnection with Scotland be provided and a link between Belfast and the border, I am particularly concerned that the capital expenditure required to meet such necessary investments might not be forthcoming due to the reductions signalled in this section of the review.

Mr William Hay: I ask the same question as MrFarren about the extension of the natural gas pipeline to the rest of the Province, and especially to the north and north-west. There is a strong political lobby to ensure that the extension takes place. The Government have completed a feasibility study on natural gas for those areas. However it was a narrow study and we, the representatives of the north and north-west, want assurances that natural gas will be supplied to the rest of the Province. We have no problem about gas for the Greater Belfast area, but for the sake of industry and economic development, and in terms of social issues, it is important that the rest of the Province gets a natural gas pipeline. I ask the Minister to set money aside for that.

Ms Mary Nelis: At the recent economic forum in Derry, which was organised by Derry City Council, it was stated that since 1939 that area has had the highest unemployment in the Six Counties. Strabane has an equally bad record. Unemployment is directly related to ill-health and poverty, and one of the objectives of the review is to enhance the quality of life for people in the north and invigorate TSN initiatives. How can that be achieved if expenditure on training and on tackling unemployment is to drop by 4% over the next three years? That percentage allows for inflation. It would be useful to have information on how TSN decisions ensure the funding is correctly targeted. I join my comrades on Derry City Council in putting the case for natural gas. It will help to tackle our long-term endemic unemployment.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Industrial development is mentioned on pages 12 and 13 of the review. A substantial real-terms reduction in expenditure is proposed. It would be helpful for such documents to make explicit assumptions about inflation. How does that reduction, especially in the context of selective financial assistance, relate to the ongoing review of the structures of the main industrial development agencies, to the recent performance of the IDB and LEDU and to the Department of Economic Development’s economic strategy review? That review is not yet complete, and we, as democratic representatives, have not had the chance to contribute to it.

Mr Joe Byrne: How can the stated aims of sustained economic growth and an improvement in the NorthernIreland economy be achieved in the light of the projected reduction in the budget of the Department of Economic Development? I welcome the fact that there will be 2,000 extra higher education places over the next three years. I hope that Tyrone will not be the only county without full-time higher education provisions. TSN and PAFT should ensure that the county town of Tyrone gets some places.

Paul Murphy: First, I will respond to MrMcCartney’s point about access to the reserve, which I have not completed but have not forgotten. The Member knows that it is always possible, if there is a genuine and UK-wide crisis, to obtain certain moneys from the reserve. Indeed, the cost of BSE and the difficulties associated with that crisis were a drain on the reserve. However, it is not designed for local emergencies, except where the scale is such that it is impossible for the amount to be met from internal resources from the block. It depends on the circumstances of the issue we are dealing with.
Mr McCartney and MsCarson referred again to the question of the Port of Belfast, and in particular the provision for long-term items. The port would certainly not be sold for a bargain. Water, education capital, and roads capital are examples of long-term items. Again, we would be more than willing to listen to the views of Members of the Assembly — and they have expressed them strongly this afternoon — on how best to deal with this particular issue and I will be taking that message back.
Mr Farren referred to two things. First he referred to the Belfast Agreement and the commitments made there regarding the Civic Forum and the North/South Ministerial Councils and the expenditure necessary on them as a consequence of the Agreement. The Assembly may rest assured that there will be proper provision made within the estimates in the budget for such commitments in the Agreement, and we will ensure that that will be visible.
Mr Farren’s second point, also raised by MrHay and MrsNelis, referred to the lack of Natural Gas in the north of Northern Ireland. A year or so ago I talked to Derry City Council and they were very strong in their view of how important it was that Natural Gas be extended to the north-west. Until I came to Northern Ireland as Minister, I was unaware that there were no such facilities. As someone who uses gas for cooking and heating I can understand people’s views on this. There is no actual provision in these plans for new gas pipelines. As Members will know, it is very expensive and will need to be critically appraised.
It will be a matter for the Assembly to decide whether it is possible, by some method or other, to persuade the Treasury to increase the block grant or to ensure that there is some sort of agreement, achieved by negotiations with private companies, to bring it through. I understand that the case is there and the Assembly, ultimately, will have to find such funding but certainly not within the estimates as they are presented today.
Mrs Nelis also referred to unemployment. Let me remind her that the welfare-to-work programme will provide £240million for Northern Ireland during the current Parliament — a very large amount indeed. That amount is set against a general picture of falling unemployment and increases in health and education. I do not underestimate the huge significance of the need — particularly as we move into a more peaceful setting — to retrain people and to give young people the skills necessary to ensure that they can have a fulfilling and useful life in the next century. That is very significant for us all.
DrBirnie referred to the Industrial Development Board. The cuts in the budget are relatively modest. We will still be spending £165million in 1999-2000. We believe that the more peaceful climate, and the progress made in this Assembly, will strengthen the attractiveness of Northern Ireland as a good investment location. The strategy to which he refers is, indeed, under way. The IDB’s level of assistance to industry will remain very competitive and will continue to provide a high level of support for attracting new inward investment — a point made by MrByrne also.
I do not underestimate the work being done by the Department of Economic Development or by the IDB. Indeed the recent 11-city tour was hugely significant, and I hope that much will come of it.
The estimate is reasonable and, over the next few years, it should provide sufficient funds for industrial investment. A report on the IDB and regional development generally will soon be issued.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I welcome the suggestion in the statement that more will be spent on improving NorthernIreland’s water and sewerage infrastructure. Last week some homes in my constituency were flooded for the fifth time in a year and sewage was running through the houses because of the inadequacy of the sewerage system.
The question of urban regeneration has been highlighted on a number of occasions. As BillyHutchinson has said, expenditure on the Odyssey project will be offset by urban regeneration programmes. Nothing specific is mentioned in the paper. Which urban regeneration programmes will be affected, and will urban regeneration in East Belfast generally be affected by directing funds to the flagship project?
In their recent Green Paper, the Government emphasised the need to change the emphasis on transport. The Odyssey project is a good example of decisions being made ahead of changes that may be needed to public transport. The Department has cut car parking spaces by 3,000, on the basis that there will be adequate public transport to facilitate the Odyssey project in East Belfast. If planning decisions are made on the basis of adequate public transport, what money has been set aside for transport to ensure that programmes will be implemented?

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirligh.
Is the Minister aware of the lack of watermains in many parts of the SixCounties such as the Sperrins, the Glenavy Valley, Sixmilecross and parts of my constituency in SouthDown? A special budget needs to be established to address that aspect of unfit rural housing. Will the Minister set up a task force and establish a special fund to bring mains water to every home in the Six Counties, thereby helping to bring many rural homes up to the standards that are expected in the new millennium? Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Ken Robinson: I thank the Minister for answering our questions and for accompanying this group to Brussels. He had the role of a schoolmaster in looking after us all, but I suspect he enjoyed it. Does he agree that it is incumbent upon the Assembly wisely to allocate the increased funding for education and economic development, and to maximise the potential benefits to education and the economy in a way that is free from political ideologies designed to place the maximum number of posteriors on padded upholstery?
Can the Minister give the House more details about the proposed levels of capital and revenue funding that has been set aside for the Springvale campus, the percentage of Northern Ireland’s education budget which this equates, and the cost of relocating the current College of Art from North Belfast to Springvale with the loss of local jobs and the possible damage to the proposed cathedral quarter, with its newly designated arts, craft and cultural ethos?
Can he indicate how much money has been set aside specifically to retrain teachers in information technology, to raise standards in schools and to develop the skills necessary for delivering that? Also, how much has been set-aside for training pre-school teachers and providing for the accreditation of those skills so that they may be properly recognised?

Lord Alderdice: Please bring this series of questions to a conclusion.

Mr Ken Robinson: May I also ask that teachers be suitably financially rewarded for attaining these new levels of excellence and that disruption to schools be kept to a minimum during the retraining process.

Mr Donovan McClelland: My questions refer to Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL). Is the Minister aware that the predicted growth forecast for DEL in Northern Ireland over the next three years, in cash terms, is 3·6%, while the figure for the United Kingdom is 5·9%? Would the Minister allay our fears that the decision on public spending has less to do with the Barnett formula and more to do with a realistic understanding of the public expenditure needs of Northern Ireland?

Mr David Ford: Minister, Croeso y Senydd, welcome to the Assembly.
I note in your statement the extra £74 million for community care, but as one who has a professional background in that area I must say that it is somewhat inadequate.
But it particularly concerns me that yet again the Government are demanding 3% efficiency savings from health and personal social services. Does the Minister seriously believe that after a decade of such cuts there is any more fat left in the system, or does he agree with me that we are now cutting back into the core services?

Mr Gardiner Kane: Will the Minister confirm whether it is planned to cut back on recruitment to the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve? Is it this Government’s policy to shelve recruitment to a body which has served this country faithfully for the past 28 years?

Paul Murphy: MrSammyWilson asked a number of useful questions about water and sewerage and expressed his dismay. Indeed, I have also been expressive in my own area over the last few weeks about the appalling effect that flooding can have on people’s lives. It can be a devastating experience, and I understand the significance of the points he has made. In fact, the budget provides for a significant amount of money to deal with flooding.
The Member also raised questions about urban regeneration and transport — in particular, parking provision. Transport is, of course, a matter for LordDubs, and I will make sure that he receives the point made by the Member. He will provide the Member with a written response.
The Urban Regeneration Programme has been mentioned by a number of Members, and I can tell them that the Government are planning to spend about £120 million between 1999 and 2002. There are resources for Making Belfast Work, the Londonderry Regeneration Initiative and joint projects with the International Fund for Ireland. Further resources will be available from the International Fund and from European Union programmes such as the Special Programme for Peace and Reconciliation.
We have not finally allocated those resources, but we believe that they will be sufficient to deliver a substantial programme of regeneration measured throughout the region.
Odyssey is not being offset directly, but in setting forward plans we cannot, of course, ignore other events.
That was one of the reasons for our visit last week — to press home with the European Union, and particularly with the Commissioners, the need to ensure that our most difficult and deprived areas are funded properly not just by the United Kingdom Government, but by the European Union as well. The European Union has been good to us over the years, and I hope that our visit will ensure a continuation of good funding.
MrMMurphy raised the question of water and, particularly, the lack of provision in rural areas. I agree with his points, and that is why we are proposing such a large capital increase in the spending on water and sewerage services. I would not have thought that there was a need now for an extra fund, but if the Assembly feels, when it debates these issues — and it will do so in the near future when proposals are put to it — that an extra fund is worth examining, I certainly would not dismiss it and neither, I am sure, would Lord Dubs. Ultimately, however, it will be a matter for the Assembly.
Mr K Robinson very kindly referred to our visit in Brussels last week. I think I needed a little looking after myself by the time we arrived back at our hotel on the Thursday. We had a busy few days, very exhausting, but very worthwhile. I think that all parties would agree that we certainly got the message across to the Commission and to Europe about how important it is that a link be established. The Assembly will eventually have a very important role itself in Brussels, ensuring that the points that were made earlier in the debate about urban regeneration, community and economic development are put directly to the people there.
With regard to Springvale, I will reply to MrRobinson in detail. I will say, however, that in April we announced an investment of £40 million towards the development of a unique further-and-higher education complex at Springvale, on the peace line between North Belfast and West Belfast, costing £70 million. Details of the split in spending will be contained in my reply.
Mr Robinson also referred to various aspects of teacher training. We believe that substantial resources have already been allocated, and I will reply in some detail on that one as well.
Mr McClelland referred to public spending and to the Barnett formula. In the next couple of years this will be a major issue that the United Kingdom Government have to face — not just because of Northern Ireland, but because of Scotland and Wales as well. The Assembly will have difficult negotiations with London to ensure that the Assembly grant meets the needs of the people in all aspects. I have no doubt that the Government have goodwill towards the Assembly; but it needs more than goodwill. It will mean hard bargaining and negotiations.
Mr Ford referred to the 3% efficiency savings in health and community care. I respect the fact that he has a background in this area, one that has been neglected over the years. Community care is a good concept, but it needs backup and resources. The money that passed last week from the Chancellor of the Exchequer allocated to community care will certainly be of great service.
As to Mr Kane’s point about the RUC Reserve, I will make sure that my colleague, MrIngram, is so informed. MrKane will see that there is very satisfactory financing and budgeting for police services in NorthernIreland.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat.
With reference to points 18 and 19 on pages 6 and 7 of the consultation paper, could the Minister explain what the adverse consequences are for the new and invigorated targeting social need initiative and the one or more public appraisal and fair treatment categories? Does this mean that targeting social need is no longer a priority, and will the setting of the regional rate under devolution consider targeting social need areas as having special status in relation to raising the £22.5 million extra in 1999/2000?

Mr James Leslie: My question is about the agriculture budget. A visitor from Mars attending this debate might be rather perplexed by the fact that we are trying to find £60 million for water services while in the agriculture budget we have to find £6 million to protect against flooding. I draw the Minister’s attention to the line on responding to pressures in animal health and food safety. When we farmers hear of more money being given to the Department for pressures in this area, we say "Oh, no; this must mean more inspections." Is this money to be used to enforce more regulations or to help the farmer comply with regulations that are already in place?

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I welcome the positive aspects of the budget for health and education. I am a teacher, and my poor, long-suffering wife is a nurse, so there is something of a vested interest in the matter. My concern, however, relates to housing.
What has happened to the housing budget in Northern Ireland over the past 10 years under the Minister’s predecessors is nothing short of disgraceful. Year after year, stop/go economic policies have caused considerable difficulties for housing throughout Northern Ireland. Financial restraints meant that 150 Housing Executive jobs had to go — fortunately by voluntary redundancy — last year, the Housing Executive had to surrender its residual new-build role, and its grants and rehabilitation schemes had to be reduced. What will the effects of this relentless reduction in funding be for the Housing Executive, and will the Minister relent on these issues?

Mr Nigel Dodds: I thank the Minister for his willingness to come to the Chamber to answer questions on this policy document. I also thank him for his role last week in the visit to Brussels. In relation to EU funding, to what extent are predicted levels of receipts and allocations from Europe taken into account in this review? At what level are the expected European receipts and allocations set in terms of Government thinking? This is particularly relevant to the continuing debate on Objective 1 status.
It is useful to have this paper and presentation because they emphasise the amount which NorthernIreland receives in the block —£9billion for 1998-99, rising to £10 billion at the end of the financial period. That compares with £1 billion over five years from Europe. Therefore, in terms of money coming into Northern Ireland, while many people rightly and importantly focus on Europe, more attention needs to be given to money from the Exchequer. It is a far greater amount, and it is sometimes overlooked when talking about Europe.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: I join in thanking the Minister for presenting the document and answering questions. I had an opportunity earlier and elsewhere to talk to the Minister about the comprehensive spending review. The Secretary of State outlined public expenditure priorities and referred to extensive consultations with the political parties, district councils, the business sector, trade unions, the voluntary and community sectors and others. I was disappointed by the reference to new TSN and PAFT. In the consultation, it will have been made clear to the Minister and his colleagues how much priority is attached to ring-fencing these measures. They are seen as essential for delivering quality and parity of esteem.
There were representations that these should not simply be guidelines, but a constant policy requirement on the allocation of public expenditure. Guidelines are a less than satisfactory response to what I can testify personally was a strongly felt argument that was presented directly to the Minister in the consultations. The disparities over many years on infrastructure developments such as roads, ports, airports and energy — the case has been made about the gas pipeline — are obvious cases in terms of new beginnings. Education is another. Some areas have twice the deprivation and unemployment of others. Those issues were raised directly, but where in this document is the Minister’s response or a sign that attention was paid to those issues? I certainly cannot find any such references.
Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I welcome the opportunity to ask questions on this important document, but I am concerned about the short notice. Many Members were away last week, and we have not had a proper opportunity to study this matter. We are getting answers, but I should like to see the deadline on this important document extended so that Members may have more time to consider this important document and make representations.

Paul Murphy: Ms Gildernew referred to TSN and PAFT and to how the regional rate might be used to promote those schemes. Mr McLaughlin also spoke about those issues. So far as housing is concerned, there may be a small effect on PAFT, but that will be more than outweighed by the positive impact on health, education and other programmes in the budget. We are committed to TSN. It is a priority theme for all public expenditure programmes and, although it is not a programme in itself, it applies to all programmes.
I propose to write to Members who have spoken about TSN and to other Members on the points they have made. That will enable me to respond in more detail than time allows today. I understand the significance that Members attach to TSN.
Mr Leslie rightly raised the problems of agriculture. His plea was not for more inspections, but for more direct help. I am informed that the improvements are designed to help to meet existing requirements but not new impositions. I shall write to the Member on some of those matters.
Direct help to the farmer rather than bureaucracy is important. The aim should be to ensure proper help to address the farming difficulties that have been identified in the debate.
Mr ONeill referred to housing. Housing has been very badly hit over the last decade, not just in NorthernIreland but throughout the United Kingdom generally. The move towards housing associations is a welcome one. They have done a lot of good work in Northern Ireland and are able to access funding well beyond what the Housing Executive has to deal with. A total of £600 million is to be made available for housing in each of the next three years, and in the Chancellor’s package of last May an additional £11million was made available for housing in the worst estates.
A number of receipts have also been incorporated into this budget, but ultimately, if the Assembly feels there is inadequate support for social housing in this comprehensive spending review, the ability is there, as the year develops, to change some of this spending.
Mr Dodds referred to how successful last week’s European trip was in terms of making the point to those who matter in Europe — the key players — that there is no division in this Assembly, on political grounds, as regards the need to put Northern Ireland’s case and to get the best possible deal. With regard to the question of receipts being taken into account, in respect of the existing structural funds for the year 1999-2000 they have been, but after 2000, we cannot be certain what help will be made available. That is why we went to Europe — to try to ensure that we get help in the future. This will occupy the minds of Assembly Members for the next year — how to get the best possible deal. They saw the difficulties that we face, but they also saw the great deal of goodwill that exists in Brussels — and this is obviously something that we need to harness.
I apologise to MrKennedy for the lateness of this reply, but I will make two points. I do not think that the Assembly has done badly, so far, in making its views known in very considerable detail on various aspects of the budget. We are making a careful note of everything that has been said, whether on agricultural, targeting social need or policing. We have already had a lengthy consultation period, and the views expressed do not differ very much from the points that have been made here today. Obviously there is now more detail — the flesh and the figures are there. You can rest assured that we will take the Assembly’s views into account, particularly in the controversial areas that have been mentioned today.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: The recent report on the Industrial Development Board by the NorthernIreland Audit Office showed a poor performance with regard to delivering jobs in West Tyrone — particularly in my home town of Strabane. Can you assure me that a fair proportion of the £165 million economic development package will be dedicated to this area?

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Can the Minister tell Members how he intends to meet the needs of the community that lives outside the greater Belfast area, in terms of road traffic infrastructure and job creation?
May I draw his attention to the SecretaryofState’s 14July1998 statement on the issue of additional spending in Northern Ireland when she indicated that her priorities included modernising the transport infrastructure before the end of 2002 and, by March 2002, securing a commitment from the Industrial Development Board’s client companies to create 23,000 jobs? Does the Minister share my concern that, in terms of road infrastructure in North Antrim, the Glarryford to Ballycastle junction has seen about 303road traffic accidents, causing 21deaths and over 600people to be injured in the past 10 years?
When will money be provided to address that programme? In terms of economic development in the same area, is the Minister aware of the Industrial Development Board’s audit report, which shows that the areas of Moyle, Ballymoney and Ballymena, which account for almost 6% of Northern Ireland’s total unemployed, have had no significant job promotion programme in the last 10 years? How does he react to that picture of economic and social neglect and, indeed, job discrimination?

Mr Francie Molloy: A Chathaoirligh, I welcome the increase in spending on health and education and hope that this will be used to ensure the retention of small rural schools, such as Carland in my own area, which we have been lobbying for. I also urge that extra money be used to retain hospitals such as the South Tyrone and the Mid-Ulster.
Throughout the comprehensive spending review, it appears that the Chancellor’s initiative is substitute rather than additional expenditure. Can the Minister provide the Assembly with a detailed breakdown of the proportion of the Chancellor’s initiative that is additional?

Mrs Eileen Bell: I have two questions about the review. First, the Minister’s report said — and I welcome this wholeheartedly — that there will be a further 6,300 pre-school places by 2001. Mention was also made of capital and maintenance for schools. I would like to ask about the additional support being made available for integrated education and Irish-medium schools. Can the Minister give an assurance that the three integrated schools — Strangford, Oakwood and Ulidia — that have satisfied the criteria will receive finance for administration support? In addition, there are the Irish-medium schools. There are Meánscoil Dhoire and eight primary schools from Derry to Maghera, Castlewellan and Downpatrick, whose needs must be considered too.
My other concern relates to the current levels of provision for public libraries. Anyone, especially from North Down, knows that the libraries need only what is mentioned in the review: new stock and new buildings. The library in North Down is a safety hazard. I seek the Minister’s assurance that there will be moneys for what is noted in the review as well as for refurbishment, restocking and generally improved facilities for the libraries.

Mr Sam Foster: I too welcome the Minister to give Members a little insight into this very important document. It is evident that there is not a pot of gold that never empties.
I welcome the input into the social services budget, although I am concerned about whether it is enough. It needs to be increased by 7% year on year, just to keep up with medical advances.
My main question relates to roads. In the south-west of the province the roads leading to County Fermanagh, especially the part of the A4 from the Ballygawley roundabout to Augher, are snake-like tracks, and there is no sign of anything being done about this. The A4, which leads to the province’s lakeland area, needs to be improved. Is there any proposal to upgrade it?
Furthermore, we need a throughpass in Enniskillen, which is a bustling town that is presently choked with traffic, especially at rush hour. Are funds available within the budget for such a scheme?

Mr Danny O'Connor: Like my colleague MrONeill, I should also like to speak about housing.
Page 16 of the review refers to the provision of housing by associations rather than by the NorthernIreland Housing Executive, and to the introduction of a common waiting list. What steps have the Government taken to ensure that the tenants of such associations are not discriminated against or disadvantaged over their rights to repair or to buy their own homes or to receive discounts on such purchases? During civil unrest in July some Housing Executive tenants in my constituency who were forced from their homes were rehoused by an association. The discounts that they had accrued from the NorthernIreland Housing Executive no longer apply because they were rehoused by an association.
I note the continuing cuts with great concern. The Minister said that one of the benefits is that private finance can be attracted to the industry to supplement public resources. My concern is that the cuts are not intended to supplement public resources but eventually to replace them, thus doing away with the NorthernIreland Housing Executive. That is my main concern.

Paul Murphy: Mr McMenamin referred to Strabane. I think that everyone is aware of Strabane’s unemployment problem. It is important for industrialists to consider such peripheral places. Part of my own constituency is far from the M4. It is easy to get the companies to come to the part that is close to the M4, but difficult to encourage them to come to the top of the valleys. It is a problem for industrial development boards and economic development Ministers. The difficulty is that ultimately it is the company’s decision regardless of how many benefits are put before it. Every effort should be made to attract firms. MrPaisley referred to North Antrim in that context. The infrastructure of places that are outside areas of greater prosperity should be developed. That is easier said than done, but I am sure that the Assembly will lend its mind to it. AdamIngram, my colleague in the Department of Economic Development, is conscious of the need for that.
MrPaisley spoke about transport infrastructure and about jobs outside Belfast. The Chancellor’s initiative provides for the Ballymena/Antrim Road but MrPaisley referred to the Larne Road. I will certainly draw his comments to the attention of LordDubs. They were made to me when I visited Ballymena some months ago and talked to the council. I think it is important that jobs and roads are carefully looked at and positively discriminated for by the Assembly when it sets about its business, but it is for the Assembly to decide how to deal with that.
Mr Molloy welcomed the spend on health and education, and mentioned small rural schools. I agree that they often provide excellent education. He specifically referred to the Chancellor’s initiative, and I am advised that all of it is additional. If he wishes to write to me for further detail, I shall be happy to respond.
MrsBell spoke about Irish-medium and integrated education. Those matters were raised in the Commons last week, and the school in Derry to which she refers was mentioned. I spoke about help which I think the European Union is giving in that direction. The importance of looking carefully at the means by which opportunities can be improved for people who want to go to those schools was also raised in the Commons. The Government are committed to such opportunity, and I will write in detail to the Member about the schools to which she referred.
I agree that in a civilised society provision for libraries is hugely significant. We will be sustaining the library service at current levels. Funding will be available to link libraries into the National Grid for Learning, another benefit of the New Opportunities Fund. This will provide training in information technology and communications technology and will allow for the digitalisation of library contents. The Government are also putting an additional £2·5 million into provision for school libraries. My colleague MrMcFall will provide written answers to some of the more detailed points.
MrFoster referred to the condition of roads in the south-western area generally. I acknowledge again that border areas of Northern Ireland rely very heavily on a good road network. This is currently the responsibility of LordDubs, and he is engaged in a review of the programme. This will include consultation with the Assembly. We should be aware, of course, that, in the not too distant future, the Assembly will have its own Minister for Roads, or Minister for the Environment, who will be able to raise these matters with you. My colleague, LordDubs, will, of course, consult any such future Minister.
MrO’Connor raised the issue of housing associations and expressed the fear that public funding for these associations would be replaced by private funding. There is no reason why we cannot use both public and private funding. The local council in my area of south Wales, for instance, has not built any houses for many years, but hundreds of houses have been built by housing associations. I have also noted his points about the right to buy, the right to repair and the waiting list, and I will ask LordDubs to respond to him in more detail on these matters.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the removal of border security posts. This is an unnecessary waste of public funds. It has cost countless thousands of pounds to construct these posts, and it is now costing a similar amount to dismantle them. Would it not be more cost-effective to leave them in place and re-direct these resources to rebuilding police stations which have been bombed, such as that in Ballygawley? The money could also be spent on a new courthouse for Dungannon. This was the subject of a public inquiry some years ago, but it now seems to have disappeared from the Government’s priority list.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat a Cheann Comhairle. A Uasail Uí Mhurchú, tá fáilte romhat.
Can the Minister confirm that, bearing in mind the commitments made to increase funding for education and health, adequate funding will be made available for the training of social services personnel, youth workers, teachers and all public sector employees who come into contact with children and young people in the course of their duties, in line with the requirements of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995?
Tá an cúram seo thar a bheith tábhachtach i mo bharúil féin agus caithfear airgead a chaitheamh air seo. What will be the percentage increase in funding for pre-school provision? Go raibh maith agat.

Mr George Savage: I would like to ask the Minister about the Capital Grants Scheme, mentioned at page 12 of his paper. Will there be no further funding for farm diversification under the European Union’s sub-programme for agriculture and rural development? I would also like to say that I think that an answer given earlier by the Minister was incorrect. The amount of money paid by farmers to the Livestock Marketing Commission when they bring their cattle to be slaughtered makes this process nearly self-financing.
When will the ban on beef-on-the-bone be lifted? It is important that as much meat as possible is sold. Also, why does it take so long, under the over-30-months scheme, for farmers to receive payment for animals slaughtered? Sometimes, it takes up to eight weeks for farmers to receive their payment.

Mr P J Bradley: My colleagues, MrONeill and MrO’Connor have already raised the question of housing, and I listened attentively to the Minister’s replies, but I must ask if he would recommend to the Assembly that the Housing Executive, in its present form, be retained.

Mr Derek Hussey: The infrastructural deficiency in the west has already been highlighted, as has the failure of Industrial Development Board not just in the town of Strabane, but in the entire Strabane District Council area and west Tyrone in general. Those two facts are not unrelated.
But the question I wish to ask is to do with the regional rate. Over the years, councils have been trying to lower their district rate, only to have their endeavours frustrated by the effect of the regional rate which increases the householders’ rates bill.
A major factor that district councils have recently had to deal with has been the effect of the landfill tax. The purpose of this tax is to try to reduce the amount of waste being put into landfill. Would it not be more efficient to allow a much larger proportion of the amount of landfill tax to be recouped by district councils? This would help to keep their rates lower. They could utilise that money to provide proper landfill facilities— which can be very expensive — and by doing so, they would be fulfilling the purpose of the tax.

Mr Pat McNamee: Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirligh.
I welcome the opportunity to address the Minister on roads and transport. In spite of comments about Belfast Harbour, I, like every other Member, welcome the Chancellor’s package on the roads programme. The Assembly will, I hope, have responsibility for roads infrastructure, operation and maintenance, and it will be up to its Members to prioritise and identify the areas of greatest need, such as the southern part of my constituency, Newry and Armagh.
My question is about the proposal to release additional spending power to the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company. What procedures are in place to monitor the performance of the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company, given that additional funding is being made available to it? I am referring not just to its business viability or accounting regularity, but also to the reason for its existence — to provide a public-transport system that is a viable alternative to the private car.
I am asking this question in the light of the reduction or withdrawal without notice of bus services, especially on the Newry-Belfast route — a primary link between Belfast and the south-east. In addition, there are large rural areas which have practically no service — certainly no viable alternative to private transport.

Lord Alderdice: Minister, may I ask you to respond to that last batch of questions.

Paul Murphy: I shall do my best, but I cannot respond in detail on matters that are the responsibility of departmental colleagues. I shall ensure that they reply in writing on such matters.
MrMorrow spoke about security posts. Expenditure on those falls to other budgets, but I assure him that they will not have an impact on the budget of the Assembly next year.
MrMcElduff referred to an increase in pre-school figures. If funds were available, the number of places for pre-school cohort would rise from 59% to 85%. He also raised the question of funding for the training of staff who come into contact with children. Sufficient funding is to be made available for childcare services. There will be £7million in the first year, £11million in the second and £12million in the third.
MrSavage spoke about the capital grants scheme and the sub-programme for agriculture and rural development. That was designed to improve competitiveness and to deal with other issues. The proposed cessation of that scheme reflects priorities in the agriculture budget. Grants totalling some £44·5million will have been paid to more than 9,000farm businesses. The Member also mentioned the ban on certain meat sales. I should like to see the return of the T-bone steak, but it has to be safe for us to eat. The market is currently examining this matter. I shall ensure that LordDubs writes to him on the important issue of the delay in payments.
MrBradley spoke about the NorthernIreland Housing Executive. There are no plans to get rid of it, and it will remain in its present form until the Assembly chooses to change it. Ultimately, it is a matter for the Assembly.
MrHussey referred to landfill tax. That, of course, is a national policy and is outside the scope of the Assembly. If he or others wish to raise it, I will make sure that the Government is made aware of that, particularly in relation to the striking of the district rate and the regional rate.
MrMcNamara mentioned roads and transport and the NorthernIreland Transport Holding Company. He referred specifically to the Newry-Belfast route. LordDubs will write to him on some of those issues.

Lord Alderdice: I thank the Minister for his presentation and for making himself available for an extensive period of questioning. I tried to keep a reasonable balance among the parties. Forty-eight Members asked questions, but I rather lost count of how many questions were asked.

Paul Murphy: A few more than 48!

Lord Alderdice: It was considerably more than 48, and they extended over some two and a half hours. It is clear that Members have valued this opportunity, and I thank them for restraining themselves to a notional period of about a minute to put questions. By doing so they were courteous to each other and ensured that a significant number of questions could be put.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [The Initial Presiding Officer]

Lord Alderdice: Sixteen Members have submitted applications to speak on the Adjournment. As agreed by the Committee to advise the Initial Presiding Officer, and as indicated to Members in All-Party Notices, Ministers and party Leaders are excluded from the selection process, as are all Members who have already made a substantive contribution to the debate in the Assembly Chamber. When the agreed exclusions were made, 14Members remained, with six being chosen to contribute today, representing the widest possible range of parties. Members will have seen on the noticeboard the names of the six Members who have been chosen to speak. I regret to say that Assembly Member TomBenson is ill and unable to be here, so five Members will speak.

Third-World Development (Assembly Links)

Ms Carmel Hanna: Our television screens have been filled during the past week with images of the devastation caused by hurricane Mitch. The loss of life and damage caused in a few hours has been unimaginable, even by the standards of what this community has gone through in the last 30 years — and I do not seek to trivialise the suffering in our own community. In Nicaragua, which has a population less than that of Ireland, more than 10,000 people are dead, more than two million people are homeless and the infrastructure has been destroyed to the extent that aid agencies are saying that the country has been set back 30 years. And the numbers are still increasing.
This year has been a terrible one for disasters. We had devastating floods in Bangladesh and China that caused the deaths of many thousands and made millions homeless. The victims are suffering from diseases caused by stagnant water, fungal infections, and diarrhoea.
The vital statistics of global poverty are mind-numbing: 1·3billion people survive on the equivalent of less than a dollar (60p per day); nearly one billion people are illiterate; more than one billion lack access to safe water; 840 million go hungry or face food insecurity; nearly one third of the people in the least developed countries are not expected to survive to the age of 40.
The poet, John Donne, said: "No man is an island". I want the Assembly to consider my proposals because we cannot isolate ourselves from or insulate ourselves against what is happening in the rest of the world.
First, I am asking the parties meeting to discuss Ministries and the allocation of portfolios to set up a Committee to deal specifically with the Third World and international development because the Good Friday Agreement does not deal with this subject. This Committee could have four main objectives for the allocation of local resources: to refocus aid on the eradication of poverty; to build partnerships with developing countries and the private sector in order to strengthen commitment to development targets; to strengthen public understanding and support for international development; and to help ensure that the full range of government policies affecting developing countries takes account of sustainable development objectives.
Secondly, Northern Ireland owes a great debt of gratitude to the rest of the world which has done so much to help us begin to resolve our problems. I refer to the practical aid. To date, over £350 million have been provided by the United States, the European Union, Canada, Australia and New Zealand through the International Fund for Ireland (IFI) for use in Northern Ireland and the border counties. The IFI aid is in addition to the billions which have been transferred to us from the European Union under the structural funds. For us it is payback time. We should now take up the challenge of repaying the rest of the world.
One of the great scandals is the level of Third-World debt. The United Kingdom alone is owed £8 billion by Third-World countries. In Nicaragua, before the disaster struck, servicing that debt cost £1million per day in interest alone — one third of the value of its exports. Nicaragua has no chance of meeting its obligations. Some will say that Third-World countries, particularly those which were dictatorships, borrowed the money to buy armaments.
Countries like Nicaragua are fledgling democracies. We have a duty to help such countries and their people, who are often the poorest of the poor. Many things divide us in Northern Ireland, but in all communities there is a deep well of generosity towards those in other parts of the world who are less well off. Much of this generosity springs from religious motivation.
Missionaries from Northern Ireland — Catholic, Presbyterian, Church of Ireland, Methodist, Baptist, and others — are to be found in every corner of the globe. The work of locally based agencies such as Oxfam, Trocaire, ConcernInternational, ActionAid, SavetheChildren and ChristianAid is well-known and deeply appreciated. Northern Ireland is consistently found to be at or near the top of the league table of charitable giving among United Kingdom regions.
Part of that deep well of humanitarianism and compassion is a result of our shared suffering. One hundred and fifty years ago Ireland experienced a famine which led to one million deaths and, over several generations, the emigration of three million people. Our economy has serious difficulties, but when prosperity returns we will have a moral duty to help those much less well off than ourselves.
It has been a world-wide phenomenon that societies become less generous as they grow more prosperous, and we will not be immune from that trend unless we adopt a clear and defined target to meet. The size of our aid budget is a litmus-test of our commitment to civil rights and civilised values. We should adopt a target because we have benefited greatly from the generosity of others. It is in our own interest to help stop the cutting down of rain forests, global warming and the waste of fossil fuels. We can afford to do it, and it is the right thing to do.
Thirdly, as part of our Third-World development programme, we should have some provision for voluntary services overseas, particularly for young people or those with transferable skills. One of the most successful initiatives of the International Fund for Ireland (IFI) has been the wider horizons programme, which has taken young people from their local setting and sent them to other parts of the world where, at times, they have worked to help others less well off than themselves.
Programmes like the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme and Operation Raleigh have similar objectives. The results have been wholly beneficial in terms of personal growth and development and in fostering a wider perspective in the young people. It is also a useful corrective to the introspection and introversion which we are all prone to at times. In some cases it would be a local version of President Kennedy’s Peace Corps.
Beside me is a large plastic bucket. I am not normally in favour of sticking-plaster solutions to major problems. We should have an integrated, strategic approach along the lines I have indicated. However, I am taking contributions from Assembly Members, officials, visitors and, of course, the media. A clerical Member of the House is well-known for appealing for a silent collection from his congregation — bank notes only. I want to make the same appeal today, and I want to assure Members that every penny contributed will go to the joint appeals from ConcernInternational, Oxfam, SavetheChildren, and ChristianAid. I want people to give until it hurts in a very immediate way.

Lord Alderdice: Order. Earlier I made a ruling about newspapers. I am not sure that what I said applies in quite the same way to buckets. I have been on the look out for newspapers, but not buckets.
Everyone here is extremely supportive of the Member’s sentiments. I suggest that on the specific matter of a public collection of funds it might be worthwhile for her to speak with me afterwards. There is nothing to stop a private collection around the party rooms. That is a matter for her and the other parties.

Ulster-Scots Academy

Dr Ian Adamson: My theme is an Ulster-Scots academy and the objective of a new east-west link. In the Good Friday Agreement under the heading "Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity — Economic, Social and Cultural Issues", paragraph 3 states
"All participants recognise the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity, including in Northern Ireland, the Irish language, Ulster-Scots and the languages of the various ethnic communities, all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland."
Here is another version:
"Aithníonn na rannpháirtithe uile tábhacht na hurraime, na tuisceana agus na caoinfhulaingthe i ndáil le héagsúlacht teanga, ar a n-áirítear i dTuaisceart Éireann, an Ghaeilge, Albainis Uladh agus teangacha na bpobal eitneach éagsúil, ar cuid de shaibhreas cultúrtha oileán na hÉireann iad uile."
That was some sort of Irish, but not Ulster-Scots.
The following is in the language of my boyhood:
"Aaboadie takin pairt kens weel tha muckle thing it maun be fur tae hae carefu mind o an be gart thole wi owre ocht respeck anent oor throughither heirskip o leids, takin in fur Ulster tha Gaelick an Scotch leids, an tha leids o tha wheen ootlanner resydenters, ilka yin o quhilk bis part o tha fowk poustie o tha islann o Airlann."
Ulster-Scots is regarded by academic specialists, almost without exception unless they are totally politically orientated, as a regional variant of the Scots language, also known as Lallans or Lowland Scots, which is still spoken to some extent throughout Scotland, although it must be admitted that in many ways it is now almost residual and is treated as such in academic circles.

Mr Jim Shannon: Will the Member give way?

Dr Ian Adamson: I will give way only for Ulster-Scots.

Mr Jim Shannon: It might take me longer to put it over, so my question will not be in Ulster-Scots.
Does the Member agree that one of the major differences between the proponents of Irish and those of Ulster-Scots is that the former use their language as a political weapon against our culture? Unlike Irish, the Ulster-Scots language and cultural tradition are to be found in both communities and are acceptable to all.

Dr Ian Adamson: Ulster-Scots is stigmatised and has no status or recognition. Native speakers — I have been one, although I am no longer a great speaker of Ulster-Scots — who complete second and third-level education abandon the language because of its low status. It receives no public funding, has no access to broadcasting or newspapers, and has no equivalent in the BBC to the Irish language or Gaelic in Scotland. It has no representatives on public bodies concerned with the arts, museums, cultural traditions or education.
For 400 years there has been no formal education in Scots or Ulster-Scots. The fact that the language has survived not simply as a spoken tongue but with its own literature is remarkable.
All Ulster-Scots writers since the lowland Scots settlers of the early 1600s (who were all taught in Scots), and all writers contributing to the enormous corpus of Ulster-Scots literature were self-taught. They had only the benefit of earlier and contemporary writings. None were schooled in Scots — all in English.
It is hardly surprising that Ulster-Scots literature has degenerated completely over the centuries. The vocabulary has been eroded at the expense of English in vernacular speech and in written works. The literary use of dialectal or individualistic pronunciation, spellings, or ignoring previously accepted standard Scots, is due partly to the erosion of the language and partly to ignorance about the Ulster-Scots literary tradition among Ulster-Scots themselves. I contend that that underlines the need for the establishment of an Ulster-Scots academy, and for a functional approach to language policy in association with the new Scottish Parliament, thus creating the new east/west link which would be of value to both.
The broad aim of the academy — taking Ulster-Scots out of a dark age of four centuries without any literary-based linguistic research — will involve the following: rediscovery of the Ulster-Scots literary tradition; encouragement of writing in Ulster-Scots and a renaissance of Ulster-Scots literacy; elevation of the linguistic study of Ulster-Scots to that of a living European language in its own right; and study of the grammar and syntax of the language. That is more or less what happened to Irish in the 1920s. Then, of course, there was no academic impetus to develop or sustain the Irish language, and MrDeValera’s translation department — believe it or not — was asked to do the job.
The promotion of Ulster-Scots in Scotland, or indeed Irish, should not be about kick-starting the languages — especially Ulster-Scots — to bring them roaring back into life and racing down the highways of the world. To think of them in that way grossly overestimates what education can do.
However, we can re-evaluate and teach aspects of Ulster-Scots which have been regularly ignored in the Northern Ireland curriculum. Such activities will promote a sense of identity by developing a deeper sense of the literature and culture of Ulster in all its forms.
We should not seek to produce a course of education with the intention of supplanting or even reducing the significance of standard English. In fact, quite the contrary. If our main business is to develop an expanded awareness of the diversity of language in Northern Ireland, this will necessarily develop the knowledge of the absolute need for standard English as a working language. We should therefore provide more support for English as the common tongue of these British Isles.
The Scottish Parliament will be a complex institution, centred, of course, on the shaping and enactment of legislation by its members, but undertaking a broad range of less prominent business as well. In assessing the ways in which Scotland’s languages might be used, it would be better to look at things the Parliament will do and the ways in which Gaelic (Gallic in Scots) might be used in specific contexts, rather than seek to devise a blanket policy, which would mean unachievable objectives or misallocated resources.
Resources will obviously be an important factor in shaping language policy, both here and in Scotland. Translation can be an expensive proposition for government in all its forms. It has been estimated, for example, that some 40% of the European Union’s administrative budget is for translation and interpreting services.
The issue of value for money must always be borne in mind, but it must not be used as an excuse for an unduly restrictive approach. A policy that would ensure reasonable use of language in Parliament and in the Assembly, as opposed to a policy of total bilingualism or even trilingualism, would surely demand only a tiny share of the operating budgets.
I return to a letter that I wrote to Dr Mowlam on 22 April 1998 requesting an urgent meeting to discuss provision for Ulster-Scots. An acknowledgement was received from the Secretary of State’s Private Office stating that a reply would be forwarded as soon as possible. No reply was received. Four times I telephoned the Secretary of State’s Office. I was told they would get back, but there was no return call — "Don’t phone us; we’ll phone you."
Everyone who signed the Agreement should be bound by it. Let me end with words from it:
"All participants recognise the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity, including in Northern Ireland the Irish language, Ulster-Scots and the languages of the various ethnic communities, all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland."

Equality

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirligh.
It has been refreshing, a Chathaoirligh, to listen to someone speak in his native language without any disrespectful interruption, and I thank Dr Adamson for the manner in which he conducted himself.
I speak about equality. It would be remiss not to remember that this is the 200th anniversary of the United Irishmen’s rebellion, which was based on the legend "Liberty, equality and fraternity" — equality being the cornerstone. It is well to remember too that that rebellion was spearheaded by Presbyterians who were seeking equality in their own land.
I quote from another document:
"The Republic guarantees civil and religious liberties, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien Government which had divided a minority from the majority in the past."
That was not taken from the ’98 declaration nor from the American Declaration of Independence; it was taken from the proclamation of 1916.
The proof positive of change for our community will be the experience of equality and parity of esteem. The reality of equality and parity of esteem means, for Unionists, the loss of their veto over political change and progress.
Let me paraphrase words of my Colleague and party leader, Mr Gerry Adams: "They have not gone away, you know." We have not gone away. By "we" I mean the Nationalist population of this part of this island. We have been here for generations. Our parents, grandparents and great-grandparents lived in this part of Ireland. They were born and wed, went through life and were buried here. We are not going to go away.
By the same token, we do not want the members of the other community to go away. They too have been a part of this island for centuries. That is where we start from as Republicans, as Nationalists, in an attempt to work out a political framework within which we can be guaranteed equality of opportunity, the ability to strive for our political objectives, free from harassment and free from laws that would deny us our national identity.
As was mentioned in an earlier debate, the British Government have just released a consultation paper on public expenditure for the North of Ireland for 1999–2002 — the result of the comprehensive spending review launched by the Labour Party in May 1997.
This has serious implications for the equality agenda in the Six Counties. The Belfast Agreement was important because it placed the equality issue at the very heart of current and future political developments in Ireland. Nationalists accepted the Agreement on that basis. Now the British Government appear to be running away from that commitment as quickly as they can. It appears from the consultation document on the review that provision for Targeting Social Need has lost its status as a third expenditure priority. Targeting Social Need as a third expenditure priority gave recognition, on paper at least, to the fact that, by all major indicators of social and economic disadvantage, the Catholic community generally experiences higher levels of disadvantage. This is stated in the Government Paper ‘Aspects of Britain’.

Mr Derek Hussey: I resent the expression "the Catholic community", though I would accept "the community in the west" — an area where many Protestants live.

Mr Alex Maskey: I thought that all Members had agreed that there would be no interruptions. MrHussey is using MrKelly’s time.

Lord Alderdice: It would be quite wrong for me to deny the Member an opportunity to permit an intervention.

Mr John Kelly: As I was saying, the Catholic community generally experiences higher levels of disadvantage. Even the Tories had a paper commitment to using Government expenditure in pursuit of equality. New Labour appears to have dropped that commitment.
In the CSR, the Government admit that there may be adverse consequences for the "new and reinvigorated" TSN and, in particular, "one or more PAFT categories". Given that resources for TSN appear to be solely targeted within health, education, and the welfare to work programme, it appears that TSN is no longer a priority. The Government suggest that their support for Springvale is somehow an alternative to TSN. One has to ask what meaningful impact Springvale will have on Nationalists and other equality constituencies west of the Bann? As the threat of serious job losses hangs over the textile industry in Derry, there is a pressing need for a reinvigorated commitment to using Government expenditure to address the legacy of economic injustice and discrimination in the Six Counties.
The CSR document targets health and education as high priorities for Government expenditure, rather than giving an expressed commitment to Targeting Social Need as a whole. Does this mean that the Government hope to reduce inequality by targeting these two areas? Do the Government hope that there will be some trickle-down effect on women, thedisabled, Catholics, Nationalists and ethnic minorities by increasing spending on health and education? Targeting need requires focused spending with goals, timetables and evaluation — not some nebulous commitment to economic development. In any democratic society, the targeting of these areas should be the norm. We are here in Stormont — which for many Nationalists represents the very seat of "the Protestant state for a Protestant people" — a domain of white, middle- and upper-class Protestant men.
We all need to get used to the idea that government in the North of Ireland now belongs to everybody. This institution, its government Departments and the policies developed should reflect this new reality. People need to accept not only that there are going to be Catholics about the place, but Nationalists and Republicans, disabled people, ethnic minorities, women and, dare I say it, lesbians and gays as well.
Equality is the key component in achieving "peace, stability and prosperity" in the North of Ireland, according to the Belfast Agreement. Yet in the consultation document on public expenditure, equality is not even mentioned as one of the key aims of the comprehensive spending review. The four supporting aims mentioned in the document must, as a necessity, be underpinned by a commitment to equality and by policies and legislation to promote equality of opportunity and outcome.
SinnFein will continue to insist that equality is central to the whole process of government, including, crucially, decisions involving government expenditure. We will also continue to make government accessible to all the equality constituencies that, by discrimination, have been excluded from government in the past. To this end I will be hosting a consultative conference on equality at Stormont on 30November. This is one way of getting government back to the people and making sure that Stormont and the rest of the apparatus of government is returned to the people of the Six Counties.
As SinnFein’s equality spokesperson in the Assembly, I will be hosting the conference. Involvement will extend to as wide a representation of equality constituencies as possible, and the conference will be open to anyone who wants to attend. There will be three key inputs. First, there will be input from key experts who will provide context setting and models of good practice. Speakers include HaroonSaad, the head of the Equal Opportunities Unit at Birmingham City Council. Second, there will be input from all the parties in the Assembly on their vision of how to progress the equality agenda, and third, there will be input from all the key equality constituencies — women, Nationalists, minority ethnic groups, disability groups, lesbian and gay groups, youth and older people’s groups, and so on.

Lord Alderdice: I must ask you to bring your remarks to a close.

Mr John Kelly: We will not be trying to direct the content of discussion in the consultative conference, but we want to ensure that all the equality constituencies are well represented.
There should, however, be some tangible outcome in terms of broad commitments to the equality agenda. We have to put equality at the centre of government in the SixCounties, and this is one way of beginning to do that.

Mr Derek Hussey: I understood that in an Adjournment debate interventions were allowable, with the permission of the Member speaking.

Lord Alderdice: The purpose of this type of Adjournment debate, which those who are Members of other Houses will realise is atypical, is, over a number of sittings, to give Back-Bench Members who have not spoken a chance to do so. That is why those who have made substantive contributions have been excluded.
The Member may accept an intervention or not. As I said at the end of the last sitting, if a Member accepts an intervention, it will come out of his or her time. That is one of the differences between interventions and points of order. Interventions are not in themselves out of order, but Members should not feel any compulsion to accept them.

Mr Alex Maskey: I do not object to someone asking any of my colleagues a question, but it was agreed by all of the parties at the initial CAPO meetings that the format of these debates would be precisely as you have outlined, Mr Initial Presiding Officer. Members who are not able to speak in the normal cut and thrust of debates are able to make their points. They can get up and address matters, perhaps in relation to their own constituency, or some other matter such as was raised today by MsHanna, for example, or MrAdamson. It is not a question of objecting to people intervening; it is a question of acknowledging the nature of this format which is to allow people to ask questions unhindered.

Irish League Football

Mr David Hilditch: I would like to take this opportunity to bring before the House two issues concerning the future of Irish League football. When or if this Assembly ever gets around to dealing with the social affairs of the people of Northern Ireland, the Minister responsible for sport will find these matters sitting prominently on his desk.
The first issue is health and safety. Since May 1993, local authorities have been the enforcing bodies for the health and safety legislation for sports grounds. However, the existing legislation is limited in NorthernIreland, and that means that only piecemeal improvements have been made. This is disappointing as soccer can still attract crowds to venues which do not lend themselves to effective crowd management.
Prior to 1990, safety problems experienced mostly at soccer grounds had been blighting sport in GreatBritain for a number of years. Incidents such as the disasters at Ibrox, Bradford and Hillsborough had focused attention on the subject, specific legislation was enacted to improve safety. This legislation requires safety certificates to be issued by local authorities to ensure that clubs implement the recommendations contained in the Taylor Report.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: Does the Member agree with me that unless the tranche of money which is being held by the Secretary of State for Irish League Football grounds is used to help football teams in the premier division and in the first division that are faced with bills for health and safety, many of them will be put out of existence? That is sadly the case with Carrickfergus and with Larne, where I come from and where there has been a strong tradition of Irish League Football.

Mr David Hilditch: I welcome my Colleague’s support.
Funding has been made available to help clubs in England, Wales and Scotland meet this safety standard. Generally this has resulted in a healthier viewing environment in sports grounds throughout Great Britain. Similar legislation, coupled with the appropriate funding, could now be introduced in Northern Ireland with appropriate control to ensure that it was properly applied.
Although the very large crowds which attend cross-channel events are not a feature of life in NorthernIreland, the figures are still of sufficient size to initiate safety concerns. It is clear that persevering with the existing health and safety legislation will achieve little and that more direct controls are essential. Failure to introduce these controls places spectators at risk, imposes an unnecessary burden on enforcement officers, police and the emergency services and leaves Northern Ireland with a sporting environment in which there is the potential for a major incident at any time. Either Westminster or the Assembly must act before it is too late.
As I have already said, the legislation specific to football-ground safety in Great Britain has not been enacted in Northern Ireland, and inspectors have resolved the problem using existing health and safety legislation. Inspections have been carried out at a number of venues, and these have revealed a number of structural problems, while interviews with clubs and the governing body and liaison with police and emergency services have indicated that serious safety management problems exist.
To date, local authorities have had difficulties in achieving significant improvements owing to the absence of specific legislation and, especially, funding. One has only to look at Coleraine Football Club, as an example, where £250,000 must be found to implement the recommendations. It is impossible for any club to meet and absorb these costs in an already back-to-the-wall financial climate.
On the positive side, an inter-departmental committee was set up comprising representatives from the local authority environmental health departments, the Department of Education for NorthernIreland, the Department of the Environment, the Health and Safety Agency, the RUC and the Sports Council for NorthernIreland. It met regularly to discuss progress, and a working party was set up in 1992 to review controls over safety in grounds in Northern Ireland.
It is understood that a final report has been prepared which is currently with the Department of Education. However, despite the support of successive Conservative and Labour Governments, the latest word is that it is now the intention to leave this matter to the Assembly in the hope that a slot can be found to include this extremely urgent and very important piece of legislation in our programme.
It should be noted that the required funding will be between £20 million and £25 million on a phased basis. Let us hope that we do not have a major disaster at any of our grounds while we await the legislation and funding becoming available! Our senior clubs’ grounds compare very favourably with those in the lower divisions in England’s football league and even more so with clubs from the second and third divisions of the Scottish League, each of whom has obtained substantial financial assistance to upgrade those grounds and, in some cases, to build new stadiums with a 75% grant.
As part of the present Government’s commitment to assisting all recognised soccer leagues in the United Kingdom to meet acceptable standards, I demand that proper recognition and assistance be given to the administrators, management, players and supporters of the Irish League who have kept football alive for 30years during our darkest days.
In the same vein, the aforementioned people deserve clarification on another issue, the much hyped and publicised alleged relocation of Wimbledon Football Club to Belfast and the establishment of Belfast United. First, I ask Wimbledon Football Club to state publicly if it is its intention to relocate to Belfast. If it should confirm or deny the name change to Belfast United, I would then ask whether it is its intention, if it relocates, to pay the six-figure sum package similar to that offered to Dublin clubs some time ago.
Secondly, I call upon the Government to clarify whether they intend to release land, at a cost of approximately £2million to the taxpayer, to a private business consortium. If this figure is the Government’s commitment, who then will build a stadium at an approximate cost of £55million, considering its limited use, with other existing long-term leases at other venues?
Thirdly, and lastly, we need to know if the English FA Premiership and UEFA are both prepared to break or amend their rules to allow a club of such stature to be based in Northern Ireland. Clarification on these points is urgently required to allow the Irish League to map its own future, otherwise it is back to pie in the sky. The public and the administrators of our local game have the right to know what is going on behind the current media headlines, which are creating the uncertainty. Members can obtain more information from their local clubs.
At some stage in the future, the Assembly will be making some important decisions on the future of Irish League football.

Mr Jim Shannon: Would Mr Hilditch like to comment on the controversy currently raging in the local press on the match between Donegal Celtic and the RUC? Also, does he agree that the political activists were totally defeated in their spiteful and vindictive interference in football, and in sport in general?
I welcome the match, and the football teams, to Castlereagh Park, in my constituency of Newtownards.

Mr David Hilditch: I welcome, as I am sure will the Assembly, the brave decision of Donegal Celtic Football Club in not scoring an own goal and going ahead with the Steel and Son’s Cup semi-final at Castlereagh Park against the RUC, but instead kicking Sinn Fein into touch.

Electricity Supply (Newry and Armagh)

Mr John Fee: Thank you, Mr Initial Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to raise a matter of intense aggravation to the people of my constituency. This is a seasonal problem that almost exclusively affects people in Newry and Armagh, particularly South Armagh. I say "almost exclusively", because I understand that there was quite extensive loss of power in County Down last night and, indeed, today.
My sympathy goes to those people who have suffered a terrible intrusion to their life and homes when they experienced a loss of power. However, it was an occasional experience for those people in County Down, yesterday and today. For the last six or seven years there have been extensive power failures in Newry, Armagh and the South Armagh region in the weeks running up to Christmas. In each of the last five years there have been prolonged blackouts on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and continuously through to New Year’s Day in some or all parts of Newry and Armagh.
The Assembly has a timely opportunity today to hear of some of the problems that this situation has created. At some point in the future, it may fall to the Assembly to take action to challenge the monopoly position that NIE enjoys, to challenge their performance record, and to stand up for electricity consumers so severely disadvantaged by the contractual arrangements that allow NIE to make extortionate profits. These arrangements allow NIE to charge the highest electricity prices in Great Britain or Ireland and to engage in blatant profiteering.
It is timely also because, just as winter is drawing in again, the first major power failure of the season occurred in South Armagh on Tuesday 20October 1998. The entire region from the Fathom Line at Newry to the border at Cullaville was without electricity for a number of hours. Obviously, the second major failure happened in County Down last night and this morning.
If this is the portent of things to come for this Christmas, there will be hell to pay. I assure Members that, as a representative of the Newry and Armagh constituency, I will ensure that the buck stops where it should: with the board of NIE.
No one should have any doubt that the substantial loss of power creates profound problems, particularly for people in isolated rural areas.
It creates obvious problems for the elderly and infirm who cannot heat their homes or cook meals, have no alternative light and may, in some cases, be completely isolated in their homes. It is a frightening, threatening, unsettling experience for many and indeed life-threatening for some. It creates many obvious problems for couples and families with young children who need bottles warmed by day and night and a continuous supply of clean clothes and nappies. These things simply cannot be done if there is a prolonged power cut.
There are less obvious problems. Road safety is compromised if street lighting is knocked out. Food in fridges and freezers begins to defrost, affecting every home, every grocery store and every corner shop. Any electric appliance operated by a timer is, inevitably, affected — computers, video recorders, central heating systems, burglar alarm systems, hands-free phone sets and so on. It can be an expensive business with no statutory entitlement to compensation for losses.
Nobody will grumble too much if this is an occasional problem, like the County Down problem, caused by exceptional storm conditions or snow fall. The situation in Newry and Armagh, however, does not fall into that category. For seven consecutive winters there have been prolonged and repetitive power failures at the same time of year and in the same locations. No amount of meetings, letters or petitions has so far elicited a guarantee of secure power supply in my constituency. That is not to say that nothing has been done.
In 1993 the then Minister, Mr Atkins confirmed that £195,000 would be invested in the distribution network around the Camlough area. We were led to believe that this would resolve the problem — it did not. We were told that part of the network was obsolete and needed replacement. We were told, in some cases, that vandals were to blame for the failure of the supply. We were told, in other cases, that bad weather had caused the blackouts.
All sorts of solutions were proposed by various Ministers and officials — MrAtkins in 1993, MichaelAncram in 1995, MalcolmMoss in 1996, and BaronessDenton at the beginning of last year. We were told that a new 33kV line serving a new station at Newry would solve the problem — it has not. We were told that the refurbishment of the 11kV line towards Jonesborough would solve the problem. It has not. We were told that the strengthening of the sub-station at Silverbridge, with larger transformers and a new switchboard, would solve the problem. It has not. We were told that the refurbishment and upgrading of the lines in the Crossmaglen area would solve the problem. It has not. We were also told that the creation of a new 33kV circuit in the SlieveGullion region would solve the problem. To date it has not.
I am not ungrateful for these efforts and for the investment. I am, however, disturbed because although most of this work was completed by last Christmas, it did not prevent the complete loss of power in the Jerrettspass area between ChristmasEve and December27. For four solid days, over a holiday period, people could not cook or heat or light their homes.
I worry because even though all this work has now been completed, yet again we have had two major supply failures in the last three weeks. The dreadful pattern of winter power losses appears to be with us still, in spite of all the apparent strengthening of the system. I have asked myself what is the cause of this problem.
Is it the case that there is a pattern of peculiarly inclement weather in my home area which sets it apart from the rest of Northern Ireland, creating unique problems for the maintenance of a secure power distribution system? If that is true, how can so many people in that part of Newry and Armagh look out of their windows at night — as I can — and see the lights of Dundalk, Louth and Monaghan shining brightly in all weather?
Is it the case that the equipment continues to be so defective that it simply cannot cope with normal demands? That would be extraordinary given the litany of improvements that we have been told have been carried out. It would be insulting to people who live in an area through which the North/South electricity connectors stride across the landscape with scores of enormous, ugly pylons carrying their load of electricity for export to the Republic of Ireland.
The real answer to this wholly unacceptable situation can only be surmised by piecing together a number of replies to enquiries by the local MP, councillors and the district councils. In a letter to Newry and Mourne District Council the local manager of NIE referred to a huge increase in demand at Christmas. Subsequently, in a ministerial reply, it was confirmed that the annual growth of demand in Armagh city was precisely 2·5%, and in Newry and SouthArmagh 2·7%.
Given such modest increases in the overall demand for power, and taking into account the fact that there are no massive consumers of electricity in the Newry and Armagh area — no large industries, not many hotels, restaurants or discos, and only one acute hospital — I am at a loss to know where this huge demand is coming from. Only a truthful answer from Northern Ireland Electricity will allow us to see the truly pernicious nature of this problem.
Of course, there is a huge increase in demand during the winter, particularly at Christmas, caused by the weather and by people staying at home over the holiday period. But the huge increase in demand is not in the hills of south Armagh; it is in large urban areas, such as Greater Belfast, Derry and Craigavon. The power supply to those areas has been secured for seven or eight years now by the deliberate "tripping out" of supply in rural areas. This is unfair, unjust, inequitable and possibly illegal. In any case, it is unacceptable, and it must stop.
I am glad to have had the opportunity to raise this matter, a running sore for my community, and the House will hear more of it if families are left once again with cold turkey on Christmas Day, if Christmas trees have no lights and if elderly people are left without heat.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I agree that there are many elderly people who suffer greatly if there are problems with heat during the winter, and I support the Member’s comments on this issue.

Mr John Fee: I thank the Member for his support.
If we have the same situation this Christmas, Northern Ireland Electricity will have to deal with a real "power struggle".
Adjourned at 5.18 pm.